On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 2:38 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 1:56 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 9:33 AM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 08:41, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 7:53 PM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > While attempting to log a conflict, a concurrent ALTER SUBSCRIPTION > > > > > can change the conflict logging destination from all to log. In this > > > > > scenario, the apply worker may already have cached the conflictlogdest > > > > > information, including the OID of the current conflict log table. > > > > > However, the concurrent ALTER SUBSCRIPTION drops the conflict log > > > > > table as part of the destination change: > > > > > +Relation > > > > > +GetConflictLogDestAndTable(ConflictLogDest *log_dest) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + Oid conflictlogrelid; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * Convert the text log destination to the internal enum. > > > > > MySubscription > > > > > + * already contains the data from pg_subscription. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + *log_dest = > > > > > GetConflictLogDest(MySubscription->conflictlogdest); > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Quick exit if a conflict log table was not requested. */ > > > > > + if (!CONFLICTS_LOGGED_TO_TABLE(*log_dest)) > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > + > > > > > + conflictlogrelid = MySubscription->conflictlogrelid; > > > > > + > > > > > + Assert(OidIsValid(conflictlogrelid)); > > > > > + > > > > > + return table_open(conflictlogrelid, RowExclusiveLock); > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > As a result, when the apply worker later attempts to open the cached > > > > > conflict log table, table_open() fails because the relation has > > > > > already been dropped. This causes the error handling path itself to > > > > > fail before the conflict record can be written to either the conflict > > > > > log table or the server log. > > > > > > > > > > In such cases, the conflict record is effectively lost and is not > > > > > logged anywhere. For example: > > > > > 2026-06-21 19:31:13.592 IST [263598] LOG: logical replication apply > > > > > worker for subscription "sub1" has started > > > > > 2026-06-21 19:32:26.731 IST [263598] ERROR: could not open relation > > > > > with OID 16405 > > > > > 2026-06-21 19:32:26.731 IST [263598] CONTEXT: processing remote data > > > > > for replication origin "pg_16404" during message type "INSERT" for > > > > > replication target relation "public.t1" in transaction 698, finished > > > > > at 0/017D39A0 > > > > > 2026-06-21 19:32:26.735 IST [263471] LOG: background worker "logical > > > > > replication apply worker" (PID 263598) exited with exit code 1 > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, failure to access the conflict log table should not prevent > > > > > the conflict from being reported in the server log. This issue is > > > > > present with the v52 version. I have not yet checked if Amit's recent > > > > > patch posted a few minutes ago at [1] handles this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two places in the patch from where we LOG/Insert the > > > > conflict data. First is ReportApplyConflict() where we LOG if the > > > > conflict arises from a non-ERROR path (aka conflicts other > > > > INSERT/UPDATE_EXISTS). In that case, the conflict data will be logged > > > > even when we fail to insert into CLT. Second is the place for > > > > conflicts that arose as ERRORs (aka INSERT/UPDATE_EXISTS), where the > > > > conflict information will be logged along with insert failure as > > > > CONTEXT. Can you please verify your test based on this input and share > > > > your findings and thoughts? > > > > > > The scenario I am testing is an insert_exists conflict. > > > On the publisher: > > > CREATE TABLE t1 (c1 int); > > > > > > On the subscriber: > > > CREATE TABLE t1 (c1 int PRIMARY KEY); > > > > > > Then execute the following on the publisher: > > > INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (10); > > > INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (10); > > > > > > The second insert generates an insert_exists conflict on the > > > subscriber. The conflict is reported and logged through the following > > > call chain: > > > apply_handle_insert > > > -> apply_handle_insert_internal > > > -> ExecSimpleRelationInsert > > > -> CheckAndReportConflict > > > -> ReportApplyConflict > > > > > > Pause execution in ReportApplyConflict() at > > > GetConflictLogDestAndTable(), immediately before opening the conflict > > > log table: > > > ... > > > return table_open(conflictlogrelid, RowExclusiveLock); > > > ... > > > > > > While the apply worker is paused, execute the following command > > > concurrently: > > > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub1 > > > SET (conflict_log_destination = 'log'); > > > > > > This succeeds and drops the conflict log table: > > > NOTICE: dropped conflict log table "pg_conflict.pg_conflict_log_16404" > > > for subscription "sub1" > > > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION > > > > > > At this point, GetConflictLogDestAndTable() has already determined > > > that the conflict should be logged to a table and has cached the > > > corresponding relation OID. However, the concurrent ALTER SUBSCRIPTION > > > has removed that table. > > > > > > When execution resumes, the subsequent table_open() call fails with: > > > 2026-06-22 09:24:53.072 IST [304864] ERROR: could not open relation > > > with OID 16405 > > > > > > As a result, conflict processing itself fails before the conflict > > > details can be recorded. The conflict is therefore not logged to the > > > conflict log table and is also not emitted to the server log. > > > > > > > > > I understand this case, but I feel it isn't critical because the table > > is going to be dropped in parallel, so ultimately, all data is lost. > > At-max, we can provide a LOG when table-open fails, indicating that > > the CLT table is dropped concurrently and thus conflict-data cannott > > be logged to table. > > > > Instead of adding additional LOG, a simpler fix would be to use > try_table_open() and if the table is dropped, silently just LOG the > conflict and proceed (see attached top-up patch).
Yeah, the idea looks good. > In general, I agree > that it is not a very critical issue but as the fix is simpler, I > thought it is better to address so that apply worker can continue > instead of erroring out. yes, my intent was the same, the apply worker can simply LOG (table-open issue) and continue when table_open does not give table. But we can LOG the conflict instead as you suggested. > Having said that, I think we can't handle > each and every corner case where there are some other errors before we > can LOG the conflict, say some OOM or some other error happens during > CheckAndReportConflict. > I agree. thanks Shveta
