Re: Re: pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From 396934406@qq.com
Subject Re: Re: pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation
Date
Msg-id tencent_55711625EE6D7ABE290E862525EB956B0508@qq.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation  ("396934406@qq.com" <396934406@qq.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Obviously in the same pg server pg15 beta2, because my 
subscriber creation use "create_slot='false'", another clue is i use "\c", all the test on the same cluster.

396934406@qq.com
 
From: Tom Lane
Date: 2022-07-01 13:16
Subject: Re: pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation
"houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> writes:
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 11:35 AM 396934406@qq.com <396934406@qq.com>  wrote:
>> ERROR:  could not receive list of replicated tables from the publisher: ERROR:  column t.attnames does not exist
>> LINE 2: , t.attnames
 
> Just to confirm, did you use the PG15 beta1 or earlier PG15 version
> as the publisher and use PG15 beta2 as the subscriber ?
 
It looks to me like this was an attempt to replicate from 15beta1 to
15beta2, which would fail because commit fd0b9dceb imagines that any
server reporting version >= 15 will have pg_publication_tables.attnames,
even though that column was not there in beta1.
 
I bitched about the ill-timing of that schema change at the time
but was outvoted.  At this point I think it's water over the dam.
We could perhaps change that test in fetch_table_list(), but it'd
require access to the source server's catversion, which I don't think
is readily available.  In any case, by the time we could provide a fix
it'd be useless to testers of beta1; they'd have updated already by
some other method.
 
regards, tom lane
 

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: "396934406@qq.com"
Date:
Subject: Re: RE: pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation
Next
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: RE: pg15 beta2 bug:cause by logcial replation