Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50f10d6a-a025-454f-9f74-e0ee7efbacf1@app.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, at 10:40 AM, vignesh C wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 00:16, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> One thing we might want to consider is for v14 and v13. They don't >> have this bug since the entry_ctx was introduced in v15, but it's >> still true for them that RelationSyncCache is not cleaned up in error >> cases if pgoutput is used via SQL API. For example, if >> RelationSyncCache hash table gets corrupted for some reason, logical >> decoding could repeat an error until logical decoding completes >> successfully and its shutdown callback is called. Also, it might be a >> good idea in general to ensure cleaning up the hash table after use. > > Agreed, let's backpatch to PG13. Should we also add a test case in the > master branch, given that this issue has been around for a while? > I'm wondering if it is a good idea because the bug doesn't manifest in v13 and v14. At least the v13 has its final minor version in less than a month and EOL. I would have caution when applying fixes to the latest minor version of a stable branch; there won't be a chance to fix the fix in the next minor release. Furthermore, in these back branches, the patch doesn't fix a known issue. I wouldn't bother with these back branches. For v14, if, in a couple of months, we have some reports that justify the backpatch, fine. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: