Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1Jvw2h7ycGDTr6YXL22BUC-TC+dbM7z3Gs+B8MnHJqDug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation  (Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation
Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation
Re: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 7, 2026 at 9:04 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 16:15, Mihail Nikalayeu
> <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Zhijie, Amit, thanks for the reviews!
> >
> > > we shall mention in the comments atop the old function that it should
> > > not be used in new code anymore
> >
> > Done.
> >
>
> Couple of minor comments:
> 1) I was able to compile without this header inclusion:
> --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c
> +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c
> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@
>
>  #include "access/genam.h"
>  #include "access/commit_ts.h"
> +#include "access/htup_details.h"
>  #include "access/table.h"
>

Fixed in the attached. Apart from this I changed multiple comments to
make those clear. One notable change is, I moved the newly added
boolean after localindexoid as it reads better there because then we
don't need to forward reference the fields. For back-branches, if it
needs to be moved to an earlier location then we can do that in those
versions but for HEAD and 19, the new location seems better.

Also, shall we keep just one test, say Drop Index Concurrently instead
of two as both tests do the same thing in a slightly different way? I
have not done that but if you agree please update the patch
accordingly.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Stabilize and shorten test_checksums/013_rewind test
Next
From: Osama Abdul Qader
Date:
Subject: Re: Severe performance degradation with concurrent updates due to excessive EvalPlanQual (EPQ) re‑evaluation