| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT takes no predicate lock on the returned row |
| Date: | 2026-09-23 12:51:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFPJysCJ3DX7NkJeo7O-9fbkSwmGovT1ts4BfcK7uFZsyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm thinking now that making ExecCheckIndexConstraints() require
> estate->es_snapshot was actually an unintended change of the kind that
> probably wasn't safe for back-patching, because it might affect
> extension code.
I forgot to mention this, but the issue I mentioned only exists in 18
and 19, earlier branches are not affected (at least without
extensions).
> Perhaps, instead, we should make it only do the re-fetch if
> estate->es_snapshot is not InvalidSnapshot. For logical replication,
> it actually seems unnecessary anyway, since it's only replaying an
> update that has already been successfully committed by the publisher.
That would work in 18 and 19, but is it the good solution for later
with subscriber side conflict resolution?
> I wonder if it was actually intentional that logical replication
> workers don't set es_snapshot on the EState, since they don't use it
> to scan tables, so estate->es_snapshot is not needed.
In that case, we should add least add a comment there, because right
now it contradicts the comment in CreateExecutorState without any
explanation
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-09-23 12:55:10 | Re: run pgindent in CI |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2026-09-23 12:38:58 | Re: Orphaned Files in PostgreSQL |