From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 22:25:00 -0400
Message-ID: <20200604022500.GA23786@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200604013311.virtnjcrqj3fgs34@alap3.anarazel.de>
On 2020-Jun-03, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-06-03 18:27:12 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Jun-03, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I don't think we should prohibit this. For one, it'd probably break some
> > > clients, without a meaningful need.
> >
> > There *is* a need, namely to keep complexity down. This is quite
> > convoluted, it's got a lot of historical baggage because of the way it
> > was implemented, and it's very difficult to understand. The greatest
> > motive I see is to make this easier to understand, so that it is easier
> > to modify and improve in the future.
>
> That seems like a possibly convincing argument for not introducing the
> capability, but doesn't seem strong enough to remove it.
This "capability" has never been introduced. The fact that it's there
is just an accident. In fact, it's not a capability, since the feature
(physical replication) is invoked differently -- namely, using a
physical replication connection. JDBC uses a logical replication
connection for it only because they never realized that they were
supposed to do differently, because we failed to throw the correct
error message in the first place.
> > I don't think having a physical replication connection access catalog
> > data directly is a great idea. We already have gadgets like
> > IDENTIFY_SYSTEM for physical replication that can do that, and if you
> > need particular settings you can use SHOW (commit d1ecd539477). If
> > there was a strong need for even more than that, we can add something to
> > the grammar.
>
> Those special case things are a bad idea, and we shouldn't introduce
> more.
What special case things? The replication connection has never been
supposed to run SQL. That's why we have SHOW in the replication
grammar.
> It's unrealistic that we can ever make that support everything,
> and since we already have to support the database connected thing, I
> don't see the point.
A logical replication connection is not supposed to be used for physical
replication. That's just going to make more bugs appear.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, michael@paquier.xyz, masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762
In-Reply-To: <20200604022500.GA23786@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox