On 6/14/23 15:39, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:05 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Also, can you try if we still stream the partial transaction with
>> create_logical_replication_slot building a full snapshot?
>
> Yes, It can fix this problem because force
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:05 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 6/14/23 05:15, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:19 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:04 PM Amit Kapila
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:02 PM
On 6/14/23 05:15, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:19 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:04 PM Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:02 PM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
Well, I think the issue is pretty
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:19 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:04 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:02 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I think the issue is pretty clear - we end up with an initial
> > > snapshot that's
On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:02 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, I think the issue is pretty clear - we end up with an initial
> > snapshot that's in between the ASSIGNMENT and NEW_CID, and because
> > NEW_CID has both xact and
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:02 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
> Well, I think the issue is pretty clear - we end up with an initial
> snapshot that's in between the ASSIGNMENT and NEW_CID, and because
> NEW_CID has both xact and subxact XID it fails because we add two TXNs
> with the same LSN, not
On 6/7/23 07:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:18 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/6/23 17:42, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>
>> In investigated this a bit more, and the problem actually seems to be
>> more like this:
>>
>> 1) we create a new logical replication slot
>>
>> 2)
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 6:18 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 6/6/23 17:42, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
>
> In investigated this a bit more, and the problem actually seems to be
> more like this:
>
> 1) we create a new logical replication slot
>
> 2) while building the initial snapshot, we start with
On 6/6/23 17:42, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 6/6/23 14:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> Hello Tomas,
>>
>> 06.06.2023 12:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 6/6/23 11:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello,
...> With the debug logging added inside AssertTXNLsnOrder() I see:
On 6/6/23 14:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hello Tomas,
>
> 06.06.2023 12:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 6/6/23 11:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> ...> With the debug logging added inside AssertTXNLsnOrder() I see:
>>> ctx->snapshot_builder->start_decoding_at: 209807224,
>>>
Hello Tomas,
06.06.2023 12:56, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 6/6/23 11:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello,
...> With the debug logging added inside AssertTXNLsnOrder() I see:
ctx->snapshot_builder->start_decoding_at: 209807224,
ctx->reader->EndRecPtr: 210043072,
On 6/6/23 11:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Hello,
> ...> With the debug logging added inside AssertTXNLsnOrder() I see:
> ctx->snapshot_builder->start_decoding_at: 209807224,
> ctx->reader->EndRecPtr: 210043072,
> SnapBuildXactNeedsSkip(ctx->snapshot_builder, ctx->reader->EndRecPtr): 0
> and
Hello,
21.10.2022 08:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 8:01 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
Thank you for the comment! I agreed with all comments and I've updated
patches accordingly.
Pushed after removing the test case from v11-13 branches as it is not
relevant to those branches and
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 8:01 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comment! I agreed with all comments and I've updated
> patches accordingly.
>
Pushed after removing the test case from v11-13 branches as it is not
relevant to those branches and the test-1 in
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 6:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as
> > well.
> >
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me apart from few minor comments which
> are as
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've attached two
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've attached two patches that need to be back-patched to all branches
> > > and includes
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached patches for Change-3 with a test case. Please review them as
> well.
>
The patch looks mostly good to me apart from few minor comments which
are as follows:
1.
+# The last decoding restarts from the first checkpoint, and
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've attached two patches that need to be back-patched to all branches
> > and includes Change-1, Change-2, and a test case for them. FYI this
> > patch resolves the
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think because
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think because
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:53 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think because the test case proposed needs all three changes, we can
> > > > push the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
> > > +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
> > > @@
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 7:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think because the test case proposed needs all three changes, we can
> > > push the change-1 without a test case and then as a second patch have
> > > change-2 for HEAD
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 7:05 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/decode.c
> > @@ -113,6 +113,15 @@
> > LogicalDecodingProcessRecord(LogicalDecodingContext
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:45 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> >
> > I think because the test case proposed needs all three changes, we can
> > push the change-1 without a test case and then as a second patch have
> > change-2 for HEAD and change-3 for back branches with the test case.
> > Do you
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > IIUC, here you are speaking of three different changes. Change-1: Add
> > > a check in AssertTXNLsnOrder()
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:29 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > IIUC, here you are speaking of three different changes. Change-1: Add
> > a check in AssertTXNLsnOrder() to skip assert checking till we reach
> > start_decoding_at.
Dear Sawada-san, Amit,
> IIUC Change-2 is required in v16 and HEAD but not mandatory in v15 and
> v14. The reason why we need Change-2 is that there is a case where we
> mark only subtransactions as containing catalog change while not doing
> that for its top-level transaction. In v15 and v14,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Please note that to pass the new regression tests, the fix proposed in
> > a related thread[1] is required. Particularly, we need:
> >
> > @@ -1099,6 +1099,9 @@
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Please note that to pass the new regression tests, the fix proposed in
> a related thread[1] is required. Particularly, we need:
>
> @@ -1099,6 +1099,9 @@ SnapBuildCommitTxn(SnapBuild *builder,
> XLogRecPtr lsn, TransactionId xid,
>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Summarizing this issue, the assertion check in AssertTXNLsnOrder()
> > fails as reported because the current logical decoding cannot properly
> > handle the case where the
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Summarizing this issue, the assertion check in AssertTXNLsnOrder()
> fails as reported because the current logical decoding cannot properly
> handle the case where the decoding restarts from NEW_CID. Since we
> don't make the association
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 3:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 5:24 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/5/22 12:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > It is possible that there is some other problem here that I am
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 5:24 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 9/5/22 12:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >
> > It is possible that there is some other problem here that I am
> > missing. But at this stage, I don't see anything wrong other than the
On 9/5/22 12:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/5/22 06:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 7:38 PM Tomas Vondra
>>> wrote:
On 9/4/22 14:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> As per
>> my understanding, the
On 9/5/22 08:35, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 11:10 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/22 16:08, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> so in fact we *know* 849 is a subxact of 848, but we don't call
>>> ReorderBufferAssignChild in this case. In fact we can't even do the
>>>
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 9/5/22 06:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 7:38 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/4/22 14:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >>>
> As per
> my understanding, the problem I reported in the email [1] is the same
>
On 9/5/22 06:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 7:38 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/22 14:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
As per
my understanding, the problem I reported in the email [1] is the same
and we have seen this in BF failures as well. I posted a way to
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 11:10 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 9/4/22 16:08, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > so in fact we *know* 849 is a subxact of 848, but we don't call
> > ReorderBufferAssignChild in this case. In fact we can't even do the
> > assignment easily in this case, because we
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 7:38 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 9/4/22 14:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> >> As per
> >> my understanding, the problem I reported in the email [1] is the same
> >> and we have seen this in BF failures as well. I posted a way to
> >> reproduce it in that email. It seems
On 9/4/22 16:08, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
>
> so in fact we *know* 849 is a subxact of 848, but we don't call
> ReorderBufferAssignChild in this case. In fact we can't even do the
> assignment easily in this case, because we create the subxact first, so
> that the crash happens right when we
On 9/4/22 14:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 9/4/22 13:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tomas Vondra
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been running some valgrind tests on rpi4/aarch64, and I get a crash
>>> in test_decoding ddl test in ~50% runs. I don't see the same failure
>>>
On 9/4/22 13:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>> I've been running some valgrind tests on rpi4/aarch64, and I get a crash
>> in test_decoding ddl test in ~50% runs. I don't see the same failure
>> without valgrind or on 32-bit system (hundreds of
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> I've been running some valgrind tests on rpi4/aarch64, and I get a crash
> in test_decoding ddl test in ~50% runs. I don't see the same failure
> without valgrind or on 32-bit system (hundreds of runs, no crashes), so
> I suspect this is a
Hi,
I've been running some valgrind tests on rpi4/aarch64, and I get a crash
in test_decoding ddl test in ~50% runs. I don't see the same failure
without valgrind or on 32-bit system (hundreds of runs, no crashes), so
I suspect this is a race condition, and with valgrind the timing changes
in a
46 matches
Mail list logo
