Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date: 2017-02-01 19:32:34
Message-ID: 19628.1485977554@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Also, including the GID in the WAL for each COMMIT/ABORT PREPARED
> doesn't seem inordinately expensive to me.

I'm confused ... isn't it there already? If not, how do we handle
reconstructing 2PC state from WAL at all?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-02-01 19:38:22 Re: ICU integration
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-01 19:28:51 Re: multi-level partitions and partition-wise joins