Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michail Nikolaev
Subject Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication
Date
Msg-id CANtu0oiFPkHe0HrbnKKCTXdFKVRfhUF8bwKzR9Y7y3Q7bdQKWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication  ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
Responses RE: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication
List pgsql-hackers
Hello, everyone.

There are some comments on this patch related to issue [0].
In short: any DirtySnapshot index scan may fail to find an existing tuple in the case of a concurrent update.

- FindConflictTuple may return false negative result in the case of concurrent update because ExecCheckIndexConstraints uses SnapshotDirty.
- As a result, CheckAndReportConflict may fail to report the conflict.
- In apply_handle_update_internal we may get an CT_UPDATE_MISSING instead of CT_UPDATE_DIFFER
- In apply_handle_update_internal we may get an CT_DELETE_MISSING instead of CT_DELETE_DIFFER
- In apply_handle_tuple_routing we may get an CT_UPDATE_MISSING instead of CT_UPDATE_DIFFER

If you're interested, I could create a test to reproduce the issue within the context of logical replication. Issue [0] itself includes a test case to replicate the problem.

It also seems possible that a conflict could be resolved by a concurrent update before the call to CheckAndReportConflict, which means there's no guarantee that the conflict will be reported correctly.
Should we be concerned about this?

[0]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5151/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Remaining dependency on setlocale()
Next
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: Historic snapshot doesn't track txns committed in BUILDING_SNAPSHOT state