Re: Logical replication timeout problem

I made a mistake in the configuration of my test script, in fact I cannot
reproduce the problem at the moment.
Yes, on the original environment there is physical replication, that's why
for the lab I configured 2 nodes with physical replication.
I'll try new tests next week
Regards

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 7:23 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:15 PM Fabrice Chapuis
> <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > Our lab is ready now. Amit, I compile Postgres 10.18 with your
> patch.Tang, I used your script to configure logical replication between 2
> databases and to generate 10 million entries in an unreplicated foo table.
> On a standalone instance no error message appears in log.
> > I activate the physical replication between 2 nodes, and I got following
> error:
> >
> > 2021-11-10 10:49:12.297 CET [12126] LOG: attempt to send keep alive
> message
> > 2021-11-10 10:49:12.297 CET [12126] STATEMENT: START_REPLICATION
> 0/3000000 TIMELINE 1
> > 2021-11-10 10:49:15.127 CET [12064] FATAL: terminating logical
> replication worker due to administrator command
> > 2021-11-10 10:49:15.127 CET [12036] LOG: worker process: logical
> replication worker for subscription 16413 (PID 12064) exited with exit code
> 1
> > 2021-11-10 10:49:15.155 CET [12126] LOG: attempt to send keep alive
> message
> >
> > This message look like strange because no admin command have been
> executed during data load.
> > I did not find any error related to the timeout.
> > The message coming from the modification made with the patch comes back
> all the time: attempt to send keep alive message. But there is no "sent
> keep alive message".
> >
> > Why logical replication worker exit when physical replication is
> configured?
> >
>
> I am also not sure why that happened may be due to
> max_worker_processes reaching its limit. This can happen because it
> seems you configured both publisher and subscriber in the same
> cluster. Tang, did you also see the same problem?
>
> BTW, why are you bringing physical standby configuration into the
> test? Does in your original setup where you observe the problem the
> physical standbys were there?
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
>