From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical replication seems broken |
Date: | 2021-02-15 12:06:38 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm3jvX+vk3=SCXbMNJi=_Hi9uW8b9qt7Fa6gUVY4SqDBSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:58 PM Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I compiled just now a binary from HEAD, and a binary from HEAD+patch
> > >
> > > HEAD is still broken; your patch rescues it, so yes, fixed.
> > >
> > > Maybe a test (check or check-world) should be added to run a second replica? (Assuming that would have caught this bug)
> > >
> >
> > +1 for the idea of having a test for this. I have written a test for this.
> > Thanks for the fix Amit, I could reproduce the issue without your fix
> > and verified that the issue gets fixed with the patch you shared.
> > Attached a patch for the same. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I have slightly modified the comments in the test case to make things
> clear. I am planning not to backpatch this because there is no way in
> the core code to hit this prior to commit ce0fdbfe97 and we haven't
> received any complaints so far. What do you think?
The changes look fine to me.
Regards,
Vignesh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-02-15 12:21:17 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-02-15 11:49:08 | Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0 |