Re: Logrep launcher race conditions leading to slow tests

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> BTW, it strikes me that if we're going to leave
> process_syncing_tables_for_apply() ignoring the result of
> logicalrep_worker_launch, it'd be smart to insert an explicit
> (void) cast to show that that's intentional.  Otherwise Coverity
> is likely to complain about how we're ignoring the result in
> one place and not the other.

+1.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 5:26 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> 4. In process_syncing_tables_for_apply (the other caller of
> >> logicalrep_worker_launch), it seems okay to ignore the
> >> result of logicalrep_worker_launch, but I think it should
> >> fill hentry->last_start_time before not after the call.
> >> Otherwise we might be changing a hashtable entry that's
> >> no longer relevant to this worker.
>
> > A hash entry is associated with a table, not the worker. In case the
> > worker fails to launch it records the time when worker launch for that
> > table was attempted so that next attempt could be well-spaced in time.
> > I am not able your last statement, what is the entry's relevance to
> > the worker.
>
> > But your change makes this code similar to ApplyLauncherMain(), which
> > deals with subscriptions. +1 for the consistency.
>
> Yeah, mainly I want to make it look more like ApplyLauncherMain().
> It's true right now that nothing outside this process will touch that
> hash table, so it doesn't matter which way we do it.  But if we were
> to switch that table to being shared state, this'd be an unsafe order
> of operations for the same reasons it'd be wrong to do it like that in
> ApplyLauncherMain().

Makes sense to fix it proactively.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat