Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JuuNYU32=Zzs2goQBL6ZL9BtrndQ0Tgi49i7+NgpUysw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4 (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 7:08 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure. I've attached the updated patch. I just added the commit message. > @@ -1815,6 +1818,8 @@ LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(XLogRecPtr current_lsn, XLogRecPtr restart confirmed_flush = slot->data.confirmed_flush; SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex); + spin_released = true; + elog(DEBUG1, "failed to increase restart lsn: proposed %X/%X, after %X/%X, current candidate %X/%X, current after %X/%X, flushed up to %X/%X", LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(restart_lsn), LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(current_lsn), @@ -1823,6 +1828,9 @@ LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(XLogRecPtr current_lsn, XLogRecPtr restart LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(confirmed_flush)); } + if (!spin_released) + SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex); This coding pattern looks odd to me. We can consider releasing spinlock in the other two if/else if checks. I understand it is a matter of individual preference, so, if you and or others prefer the current way, that is also fine with me. Other than this, the patch looks good to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: