On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Petr Jelinek > <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 13/06/17 09:06, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The commit ddd7b22b225ae41d16ceb218b387645cb9becfdc makes table sync >>> workers stop when subscription relation entry is removed. It doesn't >>> work fine inside transaction block. I think we should disallow to use >>> the following subscription DDLs inside a transaction block. Attached >>> patch. >>> >> >> Can you be more specific than "It doesn't work fine inside transaction >> block", what do you expect to happen and what actually happens? >> > > If we do ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION during executing table > sync then it forcibly stops concurrently running table sync worker for > a table that had been removed from pg_subscription_rel.
Also, until commit the transaction the worker cannot launch new table sync worker due to conflicting tuple lock on pg_subscription_rel. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
