On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:24 PM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 17:50, Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 6:30 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have fixed all these comments and also the comments of 0002, now I > > feel we can actually merge 0001 and 0002, so I have merged both of > > them. > > I just started to have a look at the patch, while using I found lock > level used is not correct: > I felt the reason is that table is opened with RowExclusiveLock but > closed in AccessExclusiveLock: > > + /* If conflict log table is not set for the subscription just return. > */ > + conflictlogtable = get_subscription_conflict_log_table( > + > MyLogicalRepWorker->subid, &nspid); > + if (conflictlogtable == NULL) > + { > + pfree(conflictlogtable); > + return NULL; > + } > + > + conflictlogrelid = get_relname_relid(conflictlogtable, nspid); > + if (OidIsValid(conflictlogrelid)) > + conflictlogrel = table_open(conflictlogrelid, > RowExclusiveLock); > > .... > + if (elevel < ERROR) > + InsertConflictLogTuple(conflictlogrel); > + > + table_close(conflictlogrel, AccessExclusiveLock); > .... > > 2025-11-28 12:17:55.631 IST [504133] WARNING: you don't own a lock of > type AccessExclusiveLock > 2025-11-28 12:17:55.631 IST [504133] CONTEXT: processing remote data > for replication origin "pg_16402" during message type "INSERT" for > replication target relation "public.t1" in transaction 761, finished > at 0/01789AB8 > 2025-11-28 12:17:58.033 IST [504133] WARNING: you don't own a lock of > type AccessExclusiveLock > 2025-11-28 12:17:58.033 IST [504133] ERROR: conflict detected on > relation "public.t1": conflict=insert_exists > 2025-11-28 12:17:58.033 IST [504133] DETAIL: Key already exists in > unique index "t1_pkey", modified in transaction 766. > Key (c1)=(1); existing local row (1, 1); remote row (1, 1). > 2025-11-28 12:17:58.033 IST [504133] CONTEXT: processing remote data > for replication origin "pg_16402" during message type "INSERT" for > replication target relation "public.t1" in transaction 761, finished > at 0/01789AB8
Thanks, I will fix this. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
