On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:24 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 17:50, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 6:30 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> 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
