cache lookup errors for missing replication origins
Hi all,
Cache lookup errors with elog() can be triggered easily by users at
SQL level using replication origin functions:
=# select pg_replication_origin_advance('popo', '0/1');
ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for replication origin 'popo'
LOCATION: replorigin_by_name, origin.c:229
=# select pg_replication_origin_drop('popo');
ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for replication origin 'popo'
LOCATION: replorigin_by_name, origin.c:229
=# select pg_replication_origin_session_setup('popo');
ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for replication origin 'popo'
LOCATION: replorigin_by_name, origin.c:229
=# select pg_replication_origin_progress('popo', true);
ERROR: XX000: cache lookup failed for replication origin 'popo';
LOCATION: replorigin_by_name, origin.c:229
A cache lookup means that an illogical status has been reached, but
those code paths don't refer to that. So I think that the error in
replorigin_by_name should be changed to that:
ERROR: 42704: replication slot "%s" does not exist
As far as I can see, replorigin_by_oid makes no use of its missing_ok
= false in the backend code, so letting it untouched would have no
impact. replorigin_by_name with missing_ok = false is only used with
SQL-callable functions, so it could be changed without any impact
elsewhere (without considering externally-maintained replication
modules).
Thanks,
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
ERROR: 42704: replication slot "%s" does not exist
s/slot/origin/
As far as I can see, replorigin_by_oid makes no use of its missing_ok
= false in the backend code, so letting it untouched would have no
impact. replorigin_by_name with missing_ok = false is only used with
SQL-callable functions, so it could be changed without any impact
elsewhere (without considering externally-maintained replication
modules).
As long as I don't forget, attached is a patch added as well to the
next CF. replorigin_by_oid should have the same switch from elog to
ereport in my opinion. Additional regression tests are included.
--
Michael
Attachments:
replorigin-elogs.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=replorigin-elogs.patchDownload+21-5
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:ERROR: 42704: replication slot "%s" does not exist
s/slot/origin/
As far as I can see, replorigin_by_oid makes no use of its missing_ok
= false in the backend code, so letting it untouched would have no
impact. replorigin_by_name with missing_ok = false is only used with
SQL-callable functions, so it could be changed without any impact
elsewhere (without considering externally-maintained replication
modules).As long as I don't forget, attached is a patch added as well to the
next CF. replorigin_by_oid should have the same switch from elog to
ereport in my opinion. Additional regression tests are included.
The patch passes the regression test and I found no problems in this
patch. I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
The patch passes the regression test and I found no problems in this
patch. I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
Committed and back-patched to 9.5, which was as far as it applied cleanly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
The patch passes the regression test and I found no problems in this
patch. I've marked it as Ready for Committer.Committed and back-patched to 9.5, which was as far as it applied cleanly.
Thanks all.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers