On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:30 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The essence of the trouble seems to be that the apply_handle_truncate > function never anticipated it may end up truncating the same table > from 2 separate workers (subscriptions) like this test case is doing. > Probably this is quite an old problem because the > apply_handle_truncate code has not changed much for a long time. The > code of apply_handle_truncate function (worker.c) has a very similar > pattern to the ExecuteTruncate function (tablecmds.c) but the > ExecuteTruncate is using a more powerful AcccessExclusiveLock than the > apply_handle_truncate was using. Right, that's a problem. > > PSA a patch to make the apply_handle_truncate use AccessExclusiveLock > same as the ExecuteTruncate function does. I think the fix makes sense to me. > PSA a patch adding a test for this scenario. I am not sure this test case is exactly targeting the problematic behavior because that will depends upon the order of execution of the apply workers right? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
