On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:07 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 8:23 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, at 10:40 AM, vignesh C wrote:
> > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 00:16, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> One thing we might want to consider is for v14 and v13. They don't
> > >> have this bug since the entry_ctx was introduced in v15, but it's
> > >> still true for them that RelationSyncCache is not cleaned up in error
> > >> cases if pgoutput is used via SQL API. For example, if
> > >> RelationSyncCache hash table gets corrupted for some reason, logical
> > >> decoding could repeat an error until logical decoding completes
> > >> successfully and its shutdown callback is called. Also, it might be a
> > >> good idea in general to ensure cleaning up the hash table after use.
> > >
> > > Agreed, let's backpatch to PG13. Should we also add a test case in the
> > > master branch, given that this issue has been around for a while?
> > >
> >
> > I'm wondering if it is a good idea because the bug doesn't manifest in v13 and
> > v14. At least the v13 has its final minor version in less than a month and EOL.
> > I would have caution when applying fixes to the latest minor version of a
> > stable branch; there won't be a chance to fix the fix in the next minor
> > release. Furthermore, in these back branches, the patch doesn't fix a known
> > issue. I wouldn't bother with these back branches. For v14, if, in a couple of
> > months, we have some reports that justify the backpatch, fine.
>
> Agreed. I'm hesitant with patching to v13 and v14. We've never got
> such a bug report yet and the next minior version of v13 would be the
> final release. I'll add some comments in the commit message.
>
And now pushed (from master to v15).
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
