Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2023-03-20 Thread Jelte Fennema
> "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes: > > Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it > > would be good to get this in. Is someone else interested in finishing > > this if Jeite isn't available? > > I think the patch as-submitted is pretty uninteresting, mainly because the >

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2023-03-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes: > Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it > would be good to get this in. Is someone else interested in finishing > this if Jeite isn't available? I think the patch as-submitted is pretty uninteresting, mainly because the design of ad

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2023-03-20 Thread Gregory Stark (as CFM)
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 09:47, vignesh C wrote: > > Jeite, please post an updated version with the fixes. As CommitFest > 2023-01 is currently underway, this would be an excellent time to > update the patch. Hm. This patch is still waiting on updates. But it's a bug fix and it would be good to get

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2023-01-16 Thread vignesh C
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 10:48, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Would it work to use get_object_address() instead? That would save > > having to write a lookup-and-lock function with a retry loop for each > > object type. > > Jeite, thi

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-10-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 06:37:07PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Would it work to use get_object_address() instead? That would save > having to write a lookup-and-lock function with a retry loop for each > object type. Jeite, this thread is waiting for your input. This is a bug fix, so I have m

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-09-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2022-Aug-26, Jelte Fennema wrote: > I indeed don't think this problem is unique to subscriptions, but it seems > better to at least have this problem in a few places less (not making perfect > the enemy of good). > > If someone has a more generic way of solving this for other commands too, >

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-08-31 Thread Asif Rehman
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:not tested The patch applies with few "Hunk succeeded, offset -3 lines" warnings

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-08-26 Thread Jelte Fennema
> Won't the same thing can happen for similar publication commands? Why > is this unique to the subscription and not other Alter/Drop commands? I indeed don't think this problem is unique to subscriptions, but it seems better to at least have this problem in a few places less (not making perfect

Re: [PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-08-25 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:17 PM Jelte Fennema wrote: > > Without this patch concurrent ALTER/DROP SUBSCRIPTION statements for > the same subscription could result in one of these statements returning the > following error: > > ERROR: XX000: tuple concurrently updated > > This patch fixes that by

[PATCH] Fix alter subscription concurrency errors

2022-08-25 Thread Jelte Fennema
Without this patch concurrent ALTER/DROP SUBSCRIPTION statements for the same subscription could result in one of these statements returning the following error: ERROR: XX000: tuple concurrently updated This patch fixes that by re-fetching the tuple after acquiring the lock on the subscription.