| From: | Bingshuai Li <lucian1412(at)outlook(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de" <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in logical decoding with DDL and subtransactions |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 07:38:22 |
| Message-ID: | ME0P300MB0568CA479E6881027DD8AF6FC6AD2@ME0P300MB0568.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
A brief ping on v4 before PG20-2 starts. The latest CFBot run is
green on all enabled jobs:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres-cfbot/actions/runs/32910623105/attempts/1
The point on which I would especially appreciate review is the
restart_lsn invariant described in section 2 of v4: a decoding pass
that does not know the subtransaction's parent cannot output-decode
that transaction's commit, so tuplecid entries left by the skipped
cleanup cannot reach ReorderBufferBuildTupleCidHash().
Could someone comment on whether that reasoning is sound, and whether
the O(N) abort-time cleanup is an acceptable backpatchable fix?
PostgreSQL 19 is currently at Beta 3. Should BUG #19555 also be
tracked as a PostgreSQL 19 open item?
CF entry:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/7137/
Thanks,
Bingshuai Li
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-08-27 08:01:35 | Re: pg_upgrade silently truncates nextMultiOffset to 32 bits |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2026-08-27 07:36:32 | Re: [PATCH] Fix disabled_nodes propagation for single-child Append paths |