On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:38 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > About 0001, have we tried to reproduce the actual bug here which means > > > > when the error_callback is called we should face some problem? I feel > > > > with the correct testcase we should hit the Assert > > > > (Assert(IsTransactionState());) in SearchCatCacheInternal because > > > > there we expect the transaction to be in a valid state. I understand > > > > that the transaction is in a broken state at that time but having a > > > > testcase to hit the actual bug makes it easy to test the fix. > > > > > > I have not tried hitting the Assert(IsTransactionState() in > > > SearchCatCacheInternal. To do that, I need to figure out hitting > > > "incorrect binary data format in logical replication column" error in > > > either slot_modify_data or slot_store_data so that we will enter the > > > error callback slot_store_error_callback and then IsTransactionState() > > > should return false i.e. txn shouldn't be in TRANS_INPROGRESS. > > > > > > > Even, if you hit that via debugger it will be sufficient or you can > > write another elog/ereport there to achieve the same. The exact test > > case to hit that error is not mandatory. > > Thanks Amit. I verified it with gdb. I attached gdb to the logical > replication worker. In slot_store_data's for loop, I intentionally set > CurrentTransactionState->state = TRANS_DEFAULT, >
What happens if you don't change CurrentTransactionState->state? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
