On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 4:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bharath Rupireddy > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:48 AM Zhihong Yu <z...@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for pointing to the changes in the commit message. I corrected > > > them. Attaching v4 patch set, consider it for further review. > > > > > > > About 0001, have we tried to reproduce the actual bug here which means > > when the error_callback is called we should face some problem? I feel > > with the correct testcase we should hit the Assert > > (Assert(IsTransactionState());) in SearchCatCacheInternal because > > there we expect the transaction to be in a valid state. I understand > > that the transaction is in a broken state at that time but having a > > testcase to hit the actual bug makes it easy to test the fix. > > I have not tried hitting the Assert(IsTransactionState() in > SearchCatCacheInternal. To do that, I need to figure out hitting > "incorrect binary data format in logical replication column" error in > either slot_modify_data or slot_store_data so that we will enter the > error callback slot_store_error_callback and then IsTransactionState() > should return false i.e. txn shouldn't be in TRANS_INPROGRESS. >
Even, if you hit that via debugger it will be sufficient or you can write another elog/ereport there to achieve the same. The exact test case to hit that error is not mandatory. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
