On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 7:07 PM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023, at 7:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2023-Jul-05, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > I think after returning "???" from logicalrep_message_type(), the > > above is possible when we get the error: "invalid logical replication > > message type "X"" from apply_dispatch(), right? If so, then what about > > the case when we forgot to handle some message in > > logicalrep_message_type() but handled it in apply_dispatch()?
apply_dispatch() has a default case in switch() so it can theoretically forget to handle some message type. I think we should avoid default case in that function to catch missing message type in that function. But if logicalrep_message_type() doesn't use default case, it won't forget to handle a known message type. So what you are suggesting is not possible. It might happen that the upstream may send an unknown message type that both apply_dispatch() and logicalrep_message_type() can not handle. > ERROR: invalid logical replication message type "X" > CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16638" during > message type "??? (88)" in transaction 796, finished at 0/1626698 > > IMO it could be confusing if we provide two representations of the same data > (X > and 88). Since we already provide "X" I don't think we need "88". Another > option, is to remove "X" from apply_dispatch() and add "??? (88)" to > logicalrep_message_type(). I think we don't need message type to be mentioned in the context for an error about invalid message type. I think what needs to be done is to set apply_error_callback_arg.command = 0 before calling ereport in the default case of apply_dispatch(). apply_error_callback() will just return without providing a context. If we need a context and have all the other necessary fields, we can improve apply_error_callback() to provide context when apply_error_callback_arg.command = 0 . -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat