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 <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1tkW0j-004fvX-7K
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:24:13 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1tkW0h-001R56-0L
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:24:11 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1tkW0g-001R4x-MU
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:24:10 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1tkW0f-001b3F-0T
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org;
	Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:24:09 +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 51IMO6DF1773118;
	Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:24:06 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
cc: Sergey Belyashov <sergey.belyashov@gmail.com>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Subject: Re: BUG #18815: Logical replication worker Segmentation fault
In-reply-to: <1761873.1739911114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <18815-2a0407cc7f40b327@postgresql.org>
 <832225.1739810351@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOe0RDwbowSGv8qeuqyHzJndtwV5JyPEG4YwmaAvgquC=gjz+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <906545.1739821437@sss.pgh.pa.us> <911898.1739823180@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <917262.1739825850@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1072645.1739835476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOe0RDwUeZduRUcD1N=BcAk5z3ANPpdyZtr4qNjiY6fPQu=sDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1249036.1739897685@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1761873.1739911114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:38:34 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1773116.1739917446.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:24:06 -0500
Message-ID: <1773117.1739917446@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1773117.1739917446%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> I don't intend 0003 for back-patch, but the rest of this has to go
> back as far as the bug can be observed, which I didn't test yet.

Ah: this bug is new in v17, because neither brininsertcleanup nor
the whole aminsertcleanup infrastructure exist before that.

So that leaves us with a question of whether 0004 should be
back-patched any further than v17.  There's some attraction
to doing so to keep the branches in sync; but there's already
quite a lot of cross-branch churn in worker.c, so on the whole
I'm inclined to just do v17.

			regards, tom lane