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
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 |