Re: Logical replication in the same cluster

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical replication in the same cluster
Date: 2017-04-26 23:18:56
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQxyFPwED0DGvOM4Mc48Vv21CJBZsLtpV8iw0SokeVarg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 26/04/17 18:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> ... it just hangs. My server logs say:
>
>> Yes that's result of how logical replication slots work, the transaction
>> that needs to finish is your transaction. It can be worked around by
>> creating the slot manually via the SQL interface for example and create
>> the subscription using WITH (NOCREATE SLOT, SLOT NAME = 'your slot') .
>
> If that's a predictable deadlock, I think a minimum expectation is that
> the system should notice it and throw an error, not just hang. (Then
> the error could give a hint about how to work around it.) But the case
> Bruce has in mind doesn't seem like a crazy use-case to me. Can't we
> make it "just work"?

Perhaps using some detection with the replication origins? Just an
instinctive idea.. The current behavior is confusing for users, I have
fallen into this trap a couple of times already.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2017-04-27 00:14:29 Re: Fixup some misusage of appendStringInfo and friends
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-04-26 23:12:30 Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression