On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 10:20 AM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 6:42 AM Ayush Tiwari > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 17 Sept 2026 at 18:22, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the quick update. Let me dump my thought in [1] just in case. > > > Some tests may be needed (no need to include in core though). > > > > I used a separate publisher/subscriber test covering both commit and > > rollback. It confirmed that the cache usage stays flat with the cleanup, > > I too dont think this explicitly warrants a core test. > > > > > > I've moved cleanup_rel_sync_cache(txn->xid, true) to > > > > pgoutput_stream_prepare_txn() in v2 and updated the comments. > > > > > > I think the second argument should be renamed. Do you have anything in > > > your mind? > > > My idea: mark_schema_sent. > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I initially thought of set_schema_sent, but > > mark_schema_sent sounds better. I've used that in v3 and updated the nearby > > comments. > > > > > [1]: > > > IIUC pgoutput_commit_prepared_txn() and pgoutput_rollback_prepared_txn() > > > are used > > > for both streamed and non-streamed cases. So putting the cleanup for > > > streamed > > > transactions should be in pgoutput_stream_prepare_txn() as much as > > > possible. > > > > > > The main question here is whether we pass true or false for is_commit. I > > > think > > > true can be used, because no need to re-send RELATION messages once it's > > > handled > > > by the subscriber side. > > > > > > For streaming = on case, an apply worker firstly serialize streamed > > > changes, then > > > it applies them when STREAM COMMIT or STREAM PREPARE are received. It > > > means > > > RELATION messages have already handled in PREPARE phase. > > > > > > For streaming = parallel case, both leader and parallel apply worker > > > handle > > > RELATION messages immediately. > > > > Thanks for the analysis. > > > > Attached v3 with changes. > > Thank you for the report and making the patch! > > I agree with the analysis and the fix. I've reviewed the v3 patch and > it looks good to me. IIUC this bug leads to not behavioral problems > but to memory leaks. I think we can push it without tests. I'm going > to push it (including back branches), barring any objections. >
Pushed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
