Re: Truncate in synchronous logical replication failed

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Truncate in synchronous logical replication failed
Date: 2021-04-26 07:07:44
Message-ID: MEYP282MB166915AD8D07663AEA7587FAB6429@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 12:49, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:18 PM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>
> The latest patch looks good to me. I have made a minor modification
> and added a commit message in the attached. I would like to once again
> ask whether anybody else thinks we should backpatch this? Just a
> summary for anybody not following this thread:
>
> This patch fixes the Logical Replication of Truncate in synchronous
> commit mode. The Truncate operation acquires an exclusive lock on the
> target relation and indexes and waits for logical replication of the
> operation to finish at commit. Now because we are acquiring the shared
> lock on the target index to get index attributes in pgoutput while
> sending the changes for the Truncate operation, it leads to a
> deadlock.
>
> Actually, we don't need to acquire a lock on the target index as we
> build the cache entry using a historic snapshot and all the later
> changes are absorbed while decoding WAL. So, we wrote a special
> purpose function for logical replication to get a bitmap of replica
> identity attribute numbers where we get that information without
> locking the target index.
>
> We are planning not to backpatch this as there doesn't seem to be any
> field complaint about this issue since it was introduced in commit
> 5dfd1e5a in v11.

+1 for apply only on HEAD.

--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-04-26 07:15:34 [BUG] "FailedAssertion" reported when streaming in logical replication
Previous Message Yugo NAGATA 2021-04-26 07:03:48 Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance