On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Fair enough. OTOH, we can leave the 13 branch considering following:
> > (a) it is near EOL, (b) bug happens in rare cases (when the DDLs like
> > ALTER PUBLICATION ... ADD TABLE ... or ALTER TYPE ... that don't take
> > a strong lock on table happens concurrently to DMLs on the tables
> > involved in the DDL.), and (c) the complete fix is invasive, even
> > partial fix is not simple. I have a slight fear that if we make any
> > mistake in fixing it partially (of course, we can't see any today), we
> > may not even get a chance to fix it.
> >
> > Now, if the above convinces you or someone else not to push the
> > partial fix in 13, then fine; otherwise, I'll push the 0001 to 13 day
> > after tomorrow.
>
> I've considered the above points. I guess (b), particularly executing
> ALTER PUBLICATION .. ADD TABLE while the target table is being
> updated, might not be rare depending on systems. Given that this bug
> causes a silent data-loss on the subscriber that is hard for users to
> realize, it could ultimately depend on to what extent we can mitigate
> the problem with only 0001 and there is a workaround when the problem
> happens.
>
> Kuroda-san already shared[1] the analysis of what happens with and
> without 0002 patch, but let me try with the example close to the
> original data-loss problem[2]:
>
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> S1: CREATE TABLE d(data text not null);
> S1: INSERT INTO d VALUES('d1');
> S2: BEGIN;
> S2: INSERT INTO d VALUES('d2');
> S1: ALTER PUBLICATION pb ADD TABLE d;
> S2: INSERT INTO d VALUES('d3');
> S2: COMMIT
> S2: INSERT INTO d VALUES('d4');
> S1: INSERT INTO d VALUES('d5');
>
> Without 0001 and 0002 (i.e. as of today), the walsender fails to send
> all changes to table 'd' until it invalidates its caches for some
> reasons.
>
> With only 0001, the walsender sends 'd4' insertion or later.
>
> WIth both 0001 and 0002, the wansender sends 'd3' insertion or later.
>
> ISTM the difference between without both 0001 and 0002 and with 0001
> is significant. So I think it's worth applying 0001 for v13.
>
Pushed to v13 as well, thanks for sharing the feedback.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
