Re: logical replication seems broken

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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