Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:23:14 +0100
From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>
Sender: depesz@depesz.com
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Logical replication is missing block of rows when sending
 initial sync?
Message-ID: <ZUOGohG9DArmXNvV@depesz.com>
Reply-To: depesz@depesz.com
References: <ZTu8GTDajCkZVjMs@depesz.com>
 <TYAPR01MB5866C2BE11AD4FBDC0AB46F0F5A1A@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231102.101713.170587046871054404.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231102.101713.170587046871054404.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZUOGohG9DArmXNvV%40depesz.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:17:13AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:10:35 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote in 
> > I've tried, but I could not reproduce the failure. PSA the script what I did.
> 
> I'm not well-versed in the details of logical replication, but does
> logical replication inherently operate in such a way that it fully
> maintains relationships between tables? If not, isn't it possible that
> the issue in question is not about missing referenced data, but merely
> a temporary delay?

The problem is that date that appeared *later* was visible on the
subscriber. Data that came earlier was visible too. Just some block of
data got, for some reason, skipped.

Best regards,

depesz