Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-12 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/11/17 21:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Thank you for the patch. The patch fixes this issue but it takes a >> long time to done ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION when >> max_sync_workers_per_subscription is set high value. Because the

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/11/17 21:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Thank you for the patch. The patch fixes this issue but it takes a > long time to done ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION when > max_sync_workers_per_subscription is set high value. Because the > removing entry from pg_subscription_rel and launching a new

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-11 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> However there is one more problem here; if the relation status entry >> is deleted while corresponding table sync worker is waiting to be >> changed its status, the table sync worker can be orpha

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/9/17 02:07, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:21:34PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/3/17 01:04, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I think this cause is that the relat

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > However there is one more problem here; if the relation status entry > is deleted while corresponding table sync worker is waiting to be > changed its status, the table sync worker can be orphaned in waiting > status. In this case, should table sync worker

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/8/17 03:54, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > The reproduction step is provided by tushar but I could reproduced it > with following step. > > X cluster -> > =# select 'create table t' || generate_series(1,100) || '(c > int);';\gexec -- create 100 tables > =# create table t (c int); -- create one mor

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-08 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:21:34PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/3/17 01:04, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >>> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-08 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted >> by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker >> starting. Attached patch fixes issues reported on t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted > by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker > starting. Attached patch fixes issues reported on this thread so far. I have committed the part of the patch tha

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/3/17 01:04, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>> I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted >>> by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker >>> s

[HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-06-02 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:15:50PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted > > by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker > > starting. Attached patch fixes issues r

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-05-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/30/17 13:25, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > I think this cause is that the relation status entry could be deleted > by ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH before corresponding table sync worker > starting. Attached patch fixes issues reported on this thread so far. This looks like a reasonable change, but i

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-05-30 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:54 PM, tushar wrote: > On 05/25/2017 03:38 PM, tushar wrote: >> >> While performing - Alter subscription..SET , I found that NOTICE message >> is coming duplicate next time , which is not needed anymore. > > There is an another example - where i am getting "ERROR: subsc

[HACKERS] Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed

2017-05-25 Thread tushar
On 05/25/2017 03:38 PM, tushar wrote: While performing - Alter subscription..SET , I found that NOTICE message is coming duplicate next time , which is not needed anymore. There is an another example - where i am getting "ERROR: subscription table 16435 in subscription 16684 does not exist" i