MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAA4eK1K07S5tiHq7P+T51PDhHxaYiyfWZW4OP52gtTxBGV2EMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDfZCmjUS74t+_7j2g+MshYcp7026mufR3SRKW6XAgAHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JWaY5t+20iteUnPZy0E+nJi4KPqH-wEYyKx7YkcHmEqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220719.163544.1139566326103773644.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoC=jJEaNx5ersq_nxUQtuE2KcH_Rip0rNOWnvoYwVdSOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoC=jJEaNx5ersq_nxUQtuE2KcH_Rip0rNOWnvoYwVdSOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:12:22 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1KnAdjFyKHzkdDYeq5W=DxCfkvxHDa68vMuw1_rEjV3Og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode
 "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?T3N1bWksIFRha2FtaWNoaS/lpKfloqgg5piC6YGT?=
 <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>,
	"Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "Oh,
 Mike" <minsoo@amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KnAdjFyKHzkdDYeq5W%3DDxCfkvxHDa68vMuw1_rEjV3Og%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:01 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > +       Assert((xcnt > 0) && (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns));
> >
> > (xcnt > 0) is obvious here (otherwise means dlist_foreach is broken..).
> > (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns) is not what should be checked here. The
> > assert just requires that catchange_txns and catchange_ntxns are
> > consistent so it should be checked just after dlist_empty.. I think.
> >
>
> If we want to check if catchange_txns and catchange_ntxns are
> consistent, should we check (xcnt == rb->catchange_ntxns) as well, no?
> This function requires the caller to use rb->catchange_ntxns as the
> length of the returned array. I think this assertion ensures that the
> actual length of the array is consistent with the length we
> pre-calculated.
>

Right, so, I think it is better to keep this assertion but remove
(xcnt > 0) part as pointed out by Horiguchi-San.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.