Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vBZnn-000nK6-MW for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:26:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vBZnk-00GqRR-Tv for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:26:55 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vBZnk-00GqRH-IJ for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:26:55 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vBZng-003d53-2l for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:26:55 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 59MEQXkn785621; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:26:33 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Ishan Arunkumar Joshi cc: "pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: does BUG #18942 and BUG #18938 solution available in Pg16 latest release 16.10 In-reply-to: <138e9fab6979402688530eea6818c27f@netcracker.com> References: <138e9fab6979402688530eea6818c27f@netcracker.com> Comments: In-reply-to Ishan Arunkumar Joshi message dated "Wed, 22 Oct 2025 12:21:30 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <785619.1761143193.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:26:33 -0400 Message-ID: <785620.1761143193@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Ishan Arunkumar Joshi writes: > we were facing issue while performing logical replication error as follo= ws which are similar to BUG 18942 and 18938 in PG v16.9. We gone through t= he Release note for PG v16.10 but not able to find the solution for above = mentioned bug released or not. Our release notes don't usually mention bug numbers. If you want to track something that way, the best bet is to look at our git commit log. In this case the relevant log entry is (abbreviated a lot): Author: Masahiko Sawada Branch: master Release: REL_18_BR [d87d07b7a] 2025-06-16 17:36:01 -0700 Branch: REL_17_STABLE Release: REL_17_6 [45c357e0e] 2025-06-16 17:35:58 -0= 700 Branch: REL_16_STABLE Release: REL_16_10 [b2ae07720] 2025-06-16 17:35:55 -= 0700 Branch: REL_15_STABLE Release: REL_15_14 [fc0fb77c5] 2025-06-16 17:35:53 -= 0700 Branch: REL_14_STABLE Release: REL_14_19 [983b36362] 2025-06-16 17:35:50 -= 0700 Branch: REL_13_STABLE Release: REL_13_22 [1230be12f] 2025-06-16 17:35:48 -= 0700 Fix re-distributing previously distributed invalidation messages durin= g logical decoding. ... Bug: #18938 #18942 ... Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/680bdaf6-f7d1-4536-b580-05c2760c67c6@d= eepbluecap.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18942-0ab1e5ae156613ad@postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18938-57c9a1c463b68ce0@postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD1FGCT2sYrP_70RTuo56QTizyc+J3wJdtn2g= tO3VttQFpdMZg@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANO2=3DB=3D2BT1hSYCE=3DnuuTnVTnjidMg0= +-FfnRnqM6kd23qoygg@mail.gmail.com Backpatch-through: 13 and the corresponding entry in the v16.10 release notes is Avoid re-distributing cache invalidation messages from other transactions during logical replication (vignesh C) § Our previous round of minor releases included a bug fix to ensure that replication receiver processes would respond to cross-process cache invalidation messages, preventing them from using stale catalog data while performing replication updates. However, the fix unintentionally made them also redistribute those messages again, leading to an exponential increase in the number of invalidation messages, which would often end in a memory allocation failure. Fix by not redistributing received messages. I'm not really sure why the references to "logical replication" and "memory allocation failure" weren't enough to clue you in that this was probably the fix you wanted. Also, if you did see that but weren't sure, you could have followed the commit link and found the commit message that way. regards, tom lane