Different table schema in logical replication crashes
Hi,
If a certain table has different schemas and the subscriber table has an
unmatched column with a not null constraint, the logical replication
crashes with the above stack trace.
-- publisher
CREATE TABLE test (a integer, b varchar not null, c numeric not null,
PRIMARY KEY(a));
-- subscriber
CREATE TABLE test (a integer, b varchar not null, c numeric not null, d
integer not null, PRIMARY KEY(a));
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 list_nth_cell (n=0, list=0x0) at list.c:411
411 {
(gdb) bt
#0 list_nth_cell (n=0, list=0x0) at list.c:411
#1 list_nth (list=0x0, n=0) at list.c:413
#2 0x00000000005ddc6b in ExecConstraints
(resultRelInfo=resultRelInfo@entry=0xf96868,
slot=slot@entry=0xf984d8, estate=estate@entry=0xfc3808) at execMain.c:1881
#3 0x000000000057b0ba in CopyFrom (cstate=0xf980c8) at copy.c:2652
#4 0x00000000006ae3bb in copy_table (rel=<optimized out>) at
tablesync.c:682
#5 LogicalRepSyncTableStart (origin_startpos=0x7ffe9c340640) at
tablesync.c:789
#6 0x00000000006afb0f in ApplyWorkerMain (main_arg=<optimized out>) at
worker.c:1521
#7 0x0000000000684813 in StartBackgroundWorker () at bgworker.c:838
#8 0x000000000068f6a2 in do_start_bgworker (rw=0xf0cbb0) at
postmaster.c:5577
#9 maybe_start_bgworker () at postmaster.c:5761
#10 0x0000000000690195 in sigusr1_handler (postgres_signal_arg=<optimized
out>) at postmaster.c:5015
#11 <signal handler called>
#12 0x00007fcd075f6873 in __select_nocancel () at
../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:81
#13 0x0000000000476c0c in ServerLoop () at postmaster.c:1693
#14 0x0000000000691342 in PostmasterMain (argc=argc@entry=1,
argv=argv@entry=0xee4eb0)
at postmaster.c:1337
#15 0x0000000000478684 in main (argc=1, argv=0xee4eb0) at main.c:228
Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we disallow
it for v10 and add a TODO?
--
Euler Taveira Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
<http://www.timbira.com.br>
On 13/04/17 05:04, Euler Taveira wrote:
Hi,
If a certain table has different schemas and the subscriber table has an
unmatched column with a not null constraint, the logical replication
crashes with the above stack trace.[snip]
Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we
disallow it for v10 and add a TODO?
Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize
cstate->range_table in tablesync which causes this bug. The CopyState
struct is private to copy.c so we can't easily set cstate->range_table
externally. I wonder if tablesync should just construct CopyStmt instead
of calling the lower level API.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we
disallow it for v10 and add a TODO?Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize
cstate->range_table in tablesync which causes this bug. The CopyState
struct is private to copy.c so we can't easily set cstate->range_table
externally. I wonder if tablesync should just construct CopyStmt instead
of calling the lower level API.
Maybe pass the range_table to BeginCopyFrom so that it can write it into
cstate?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 14/04/17 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we
disallow it for v10 and add a TODO?Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize
cstate->range_table in tablesync which causes this bug. The CopyState
struct is private to copy.c so we can't easily set cstate->range_table
externally. I wonder if tablesync should just construct CopyStmt instead
of calling the lower level API.Maybe pass the range_table to BeginCopyFrom so that it can write it into
cstate?
That would work. The reason why I am thinking of creating CopyStmt
instead is that to create the range_table, we'll basically have to
duplicate the code from DoCopy verbatim. Obviously making CopyStmt isn't
without troubles either as it would have to newly support the callback
input.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 14/04/17 17:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 4/14/17 08:49, Petr Jelinek wrote:
Are we prepared to support different schemas in v10? Or should we
disallow it for v10 and add a TODO?Ah nuts, yes it's supposed to be supported, we seem to not initialize
cstate->range_table in tablesync which causes this bug. The CopyState
struct is private to copy.c so we can't easily set cstate->range_table
externally. I wonder if tablesync should just construct CopyStmt instead
of calling the lower level API.Maybe pass the range_table to BeginCopyFrom so that it can write it into
cstate?
I tried something bit different which seems cleaner to me - use the
pstate->r_table instead of ad-hock locally made up range table and fill
that using standard addRangeTableEntryForRelation. Both in tablesync and
in DoCopy instead of the old coding.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachments:
Set-range-table-for-CopyFrom-in-tablesync.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=Set-range-table-for-CopyFrom-in-tablesync.patchDownload+18-13
2017-04-14 22:36 GMT-03:00 Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>:
I tried something bit different which seems cleaner to me - use the
pstate->r_table instead of ad-hock locally made up range table and fill
that using standard addRangeTableEntryForRelation. Both in tablesync and
in DoCopy instead of the old coding.
Patch works fine. However, I don't see any documentation about supporting
different schemas for logical replication. Is it an oversight?
--
Euler Taveira Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
<http://www.timbira.com.br>
On 4/14/17 21:36, Petr Jelinek wrote:
I tried something bit different which seems cleaner to me - use the
pstate->r_table instead of ad-hock locally made up range table and fill
that using standard addRangeTableEntryForRelation. Both in tablesync and
in DoCopy instead of the old coding.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 4/17/17 08:47, Euler Taveira wrote:
Patch works fine. However, I don't see any documentation about
supporting different schemas for logical replication. Is it an oversight?
I have added more documentation about that.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers