Without this patch concurrent ALTER/DROP SUBSCRIPTION statements for
the same subscription could result in one of these statements returning the
following error:
ERROR: XX000: tuple concurrently updated
This patch fixes that by re-fetching the tuple after acquiring the lock on the
subscription.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 10:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Would it work to use get_object_address() instead? That would save
> > having to write a lookup-and-lock function with a retry loop for each
> > object type.
>
> Jeite, thi
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Would it work to use get_object_address() instead? That would save
> having to write a lookup-and-lock function with a retry loop for each
> object type.
Jeite, this thread is waiting for your input. This is a bug fix, so I
have m
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:17 PM Jelte Fennema
wrote:
>
> Without this patch concurrent ALTER/DROP SUBSCRIPTION statements for
> the same subscription could result in one of these statements returning the
> following error:
>
> ERROR: XX000: tuple concurrently updated
>
> This patch fixes that by
> Won't the same thing can happen for similar publication commands? Why
> is this unique to the subscription and not other Alter/Drop commands?
I indeed don't think this problem is unique to subscriptions, but it seems
better to at least have this problem in a few places less (not making perfect
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
The patch applies with few "Hunk succeeded, offset -3 lines" warnings
On 2022-Aug-26, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> I indeed don't think this problem is unique to subscriptions, but it seems
> better to at least have this problem in a few places less (not making perfect
> the enemy of good).
>
> If someone has a more generic way of solving this for other commands too,
>
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 09:47, vignesh C wrote:
>
> Jeite, please post an updated version with the fixes. As CommitFest
> 2023-01 is currently underway, this would be an excellent time to
> update the patch.
Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it
would be good to get
"Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes:
> Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it
> would be good to get this in. Is someone else interested in finishing
> this if Jeite isn't available?
I think the patch as-submitted is pretty uninteresting, mainly because the
design of ad
> "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes:
> > Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it
> > would be good to get this in. Is someone else interested in finishing
> > this if Jeite isn't available?
>
> I think the patch as-submitted is pretty uninteresting, mainly because the
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
