On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:11 AM Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 11:39 AM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 8:45 PM Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Attached is the patch implementing the above proposed solution.
> >> Reviews and feedback are most welcome.
> >
> >
> > I feel like this is just papering over the issue - which is that these two drop functions are being used for
multipledifferently named publications/slots yet take no care to ensure they only change made_publication and
made_repslotif the name of the object being passed in matches the name of the object those two booleans are
specificallytracking (the application created objects on the publisher).
> >
> > Make it so they are only changed to false if the name matches the one the program created and the connection is the
primaryconnection. That targets the real issue and avoids using a branching boolean parameter.
> >
> > It seems really odd to say: if (in_cleanup) "don't try again" - since by definition this is the last thing we are
doingbefore we exit. So really what this patch can do more simply is just remove the dbinfo->made_replslot=false and
*made_publication=falselines altogether - which might be a valid option.
> >
>
> +1 to removing the dbinfo->made_replslot=false and
> *made_publication=false lines. In my tests, I attempted to force
> multiple failures, but couldn’t find any case where
> cleanup_objects_atexit() would recurse or cause repeated cleanup if
> these flags remain set to true.
>
> > I'm partial to the latter really, I don't think the error message output for retrying a drop that may have
previouslyfailed would be an issue.
> >
>
> As of now, we don’t attempt to drop the same object more than once, so
> the latter approach does seem reasonable to me. That said, I’m unsure
> why the flags were being reset here in the first place.
>
> Please find the updated patch which removes the false setting of these
> flags during drop. If there’s a case I’ve overlooked where this might
> be problematic, we can certainly go for your first suggestion to match
> the names.
>
The patch needed rebasing after recent changes in pg_createsubscriber
under commit d6628a5.
Please find the rebased patch (v3) attached.
--
Thanks,
Nisha
