Message-ID: <4bebe196-b40e-e4a5-b72d-6cec907d4cc3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:00:01 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and
 parallel apply
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
References: <CAA4eK1LGmZsevrqJra0V4O8oBU_eKyzm2VMpSAYQaDgC6n4fkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <OS3PR01MB5718AE486227CE3ACB844C5E94F89@OS3PR01MB5718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAFiTN-sgQ-K9BnMWKLR7Hm36QNjS7ZOBF6hsXJmQz5ChC0Desw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+P9WOFBupaTZCzYtranSH=8TSUYV=kk5xQJ-VNKnvgmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <OS0PR01MB571685A645E509267AC5F30894F99@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <OS0PR01MB57168A5A1C31BC316CB63D3C94F99@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1KK7Xty7SaCReY_b5moPURowMGOsfvhOb6xQ1EAaJAh6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDDbM8_HJt-nMCvcjTK8K9hPzXWqJj7pyaUvR4mm_NrSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1K4zjeCmZUX_L09-VhjMxfqcCa+OMmpHre7YWTY2Tgxsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDD_P+6SCfQ2Nc79k=WwgDMyzMXzMVfhSEiGPyvYJ4H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2185d65f-5aae-3efa-c48f-fb42b173ef5c@gmail.com>
 <OS0PR01MB57164DF9FC5366024A1952D594659@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1+Qg79oR0LknxC05DvWfh_eiyh7eO3sDOiuVsu_dCUDHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1+Qg79oR0LknxC05DvWfh_eiyh7eO3sDOiuVsu_dCUDHA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4bebe196-b40e-e4a5-b72d-6cec907d4cc3%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello Amit and Zhijie,

28.04.2023 05:51, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 4:11 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> I think the problem is that it tried to release locks in
>> logicalrep_worker_onexit() before the initialization of the process is complete
>> because this callback function was registered before the init phase. So I think we
>> can add a conditional statement before releasing locks. Please find an attached
>> patch.
> Alexander, does the proposed patch fix the problem you are facing?
> Sawada-San, and others, do you see any better way to fix it than what
> has been proposed?

Yes, the patch definitely fixes it.
Maybe some other onexit actions can be skipped in the non-normal mode,
but the assert-triggering LockReleaseAll() not called now.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Alexander