The test was unstable in branches 14 and 15 as we were relying on the
number of changes in the table having a toast column to start streaming.
On branches >= 16, we have a GUC debug_logical_replication_streaming which
can stream each change, so the test was stable in those branches.
Change the test to use PREPARE TRANSACTION as that should make the result
consistent and test the code changed in 022564f60c.
Reported-by: Daniel Gustafsson as per buildfarm
Author: Hou Zhijie, Amit Kapila
Backpatch-through: 14
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/8C2F86AA-981E-4803-B14D-E264C0255330@yesql.se
Commit 0aa8a01d04 extends the output plugin API to allow decoding of
prepared xacts and allowed the user to enable/disable the two-phase option
via pg_logical_slot_get_changes(). This can lead to a problem such that
the first time when it gets changes via pg_logical_slot_get_changes()
without two_phase option enabled it will not get the prepared even though
prepare is after consistent snapshot. Now next time during getting changes,
if the two_phase option is enabled it can skip prepare because by that
time start decoding point has been moved. So the user will only get commit
prepared.
Allow to enable/disable this option at the create slot time and default
will be false. It will break the existing slots which is fine in a major
release.
Author: Ajin Cherian
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila and Vignesh C
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/d0f60d60-133d-bf8d-bd70-47784d8fabf3@enterprisedb.com
This patch allows PREPARE-time decoding of two-phase transactions (if the
output plugin supports this capability), in which case the transactions
are replayed at PREPARE and then committed later when COMMIT PREPARED
arrives.
Now that we decode the changes before the commit, the concurrent aborts
may cause failures when the output plugin consults catalogs (both system
and user-defined).
We detect such failures with a special sqlerrcode
ERRCODE_TRANSACTION_ROLLBACK introduced by commit 7259736a6e and stop
decoding the remaining changes. Then we rollback the changes when rollback
prepared is encountered.
Author: Ajin Cherian and Amit Kapila based on previous work by Nikhil Sontakke and Stas Kelvich
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila, Peter Smith, Sawada Masahiko, Arseny Sher, and Dilip Kumar
Tested-by: Takamichi Osumi
Discussion:
https://postgr.es/m/02DA5F5E-CECE-4D9C-8B4B-418077E2C010@postgrespro.ruhttps://postgr.es/m/CAMGcDxeqEpWj3fTXwqhSwBdXd2RS9jzwWscO-XbeCfso6ts3+Q@mail.gmail.com
