Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 19:58:09 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh21@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES
Message-ID: <20260715025809.cd.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
References: <20260710045217.f0.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1K8LD243UzHgVNCm4skJZ4UCjR3vowDhKp=cWnK5oBT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1K8LD243UzHgVNCm4skJZ4UCjR3vowDhKp=cWnK5oBT-Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.3.0 (2026-01-25)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20260715025809.cd.noahmisch%40microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 03:37:54PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 10:22 AM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > Fable 5 also wrote a lot more that neither it nor I confirmed by test case
> > construction.  I'm attaching the report; feel free to disregard.  Finding-2
> > about default_transaction_read_only=on looks worth fixing if true,
> 
> Agreed on Finding-2  as well. The issue is that the sequencesync
> worker sets the value via SetSequence(), which calls
> PreventCommandIfReadOnly("setval()") for non-temp sequences, so with
> "default_transaction_read_only=on" on the subscriber the worker's
> transaction is read-only and sequence sync fails and never reaches
> READY. Table apply is unaffected only because
> ExecSimpleRelationInsert() bypasses the executor's
> ExecCheckXactReadOnly() path which is an undocumented, untested detail
> rather than a stated guarantee.
> 
> For a minimal backpatch, we can force the sequencesync worker to run
> read-write (e.g. set default_transaction_read_only=off for its session
> at startup) so it matches table apply, plus a test that sets the GUC
> on the subscriber and verifies sequences reach READY. Separately, it's
> worth documenting that logical replication apply is exempt from
> default_transaction_read_only — it's a per-transaction default meant
> to guard user writes and never makes the node physically read-only —
> and making that exemption explicit for all logical replication workers
> so tables no longer rely on the bypass. What do you think?

I wouldn't document those things.  default_transaction_read_only just has the
user write "BEGIN READ WRITE" instead of plain "BEGIN".  Hence, it's more like
an "are you sure?" prompt than a restrictive guard.  It's no surprise that
logical replication apply achieves the equivalent of BEGIN READ WRITE; I don't
see that outcome as an exemption.

If easy, I would have the worker do the C equivalent of "BEGIN READ WRITE"
instead of actually changing the GUC.  That makes it clear exactly which areas
are overriding the default.  But changing the GUC is fine.