| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Date: | 2023-09-21 06:07:39 |
| Message-ID: | ZQvdq7KdQmjnixt-@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 04:54:36PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Is the check to ensure remote_lsn is valid correct in function
> check_for_subscription_state()? How about the case where the apply
> worker didn't receive any change but just marked the relation as
> 'ready'?
I may be missing, of course, but a relation is switched to
SUBREL_STATE_READY only once a sync happened and its state was
SUBREL_STATE_SYNCDONE, implying that SubscriptionRelState->lsn is
never InvalidXLogRecPtr, no?
For instance, nothing happens when a
Assert(!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(rstate->lsn)) is added in
process_syncing_tables_for_apply().
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lepikhov Andrei | 2023-09-21 06:11:17 | Re: Comment about set_join_pathlist_hook() |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-21 05:59:25 | Re: Bug fix in vacuumdb --buffer-usage-limit xxx -Z |