On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:11 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 3:28 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I can reproduce this via gdb following similar steps in [1].
> > >
> > > I think we need to move this call into a transaction as well and
> > > here is an attempt to do that.
> > >
> >
> > I am able to reproduce this issue following the steps mentioned by you
> > and the proposed patch to fix the issue looks good to me.
> >
>
> Today, again looking at the patch, it seems to me that it would be better if we
> can fix this without starting a new transaction. Won't it be better if we move this
> syscall to a place where we are fetching relstate (GetSubscriptionRelState()) a
> few lines above? I understand by doing that in some cases like when copy_data
> = false, we may do this syscall unnecessarily but OTOH, starting a new
> transaction just for a syscall (superuser_arg()) also doesn't seem like a good
> idea to me.
Makes sense to me, here is the updated patch which does the same.
Best Regards,
Hou zj