MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAD21AoCxVNYK0R=SSPchcx1wm6mx=qJ5W8qDVakFCOAy1UxqAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a176936-1af1-41d9-9ded-bde0eb47dd5c@amazon.com>
 <CAD21AoAn-k6OpZ6HSAH_G91tpTXR6KYvkf663kg6EqW-f6sz1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211008.165055.1621145185927268721.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoD00wV4gt-53ze+ZB8n4bqJrdH8J_UnDHddy8S2A+a25g@mail.gmail.com>
 <e54a6cfe-59fe-831d-55e9-3d5fa037894a@ardentperf.com>
In-Reply-To: <e54a6cfe-59fe-831d-55e9-3d5fa037894a@ardentperf.com>
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:39:07 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAD21AoCgYKRdW0u9ZT5mpcs_pme3OSvV2r099M3kfhQcDN+WFw@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: Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.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/CAD21AoCgYKRdW0u9ZT5mpcs_pme3OSvV2r099M3kfhQcDN%2BWFw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 7:55 AM Jeremy Schneider
<schneider@ardentperf.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/21 23:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > After more thought, given DDLs are not likely to happen than DML in
> > practice, ...
>
> I haven't looked closely at the patch, but I'd be careful about
> workloads where people create and drop "temporary tables". I've seen
> this pattern used a few times, especially by developers who came from a
> SQL server background, for some reason.

True. But since the snapshot builder is designed on the same
assumption it would not be problematic. It keeps track of the
committed catalog modifying transaction instead of keeping track of
all running transactions. See the header comment of snapbuild.c

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/