On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 7:29 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 06:49:20AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > After applying datum_to_lsn_skiplsn_1.patch, I get another failure. Logs > > attached. > > > > The failure is for the same reason. I noticed that even when skip lsn > value should be 0/0, it is some invalid value, see: "LOG: not started > skipping changes: my_skiplsn 0/B0706F72 finish_lsn 0/14EB7D8". Here, > my_skiplsn should be 0/0 instead of 0/B0706F72. Now, I am not sure why > the LSN's 4 bytes are correct and the other 4 bytes have some random > value.
It seems that 0/B0706F72 is not a random value. Two subscriber logs show the same value. Since 0x70 = 'p', 0x6F = 'o', and 0x72 = 'r', it might show the next field in the pg_subscription catalog, i.e., subconninfo. The subscription is created by "CREATE SUBSCRIPTION sub CONNECTION 'port=57851 host=/tmp/6u2vRwQYik dbname=postgres' PUBLICATION pub WITH (disable_on_error = true, streaming = on, two_phase = on)". Given subscription.sql passes, something is wrong when we read the subskiplsn value by like "sub->skiplsn = subform->subskiplsn;". Is it possible to run the test again with the attached patch? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
add_logs_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
