| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> | 
| Subject: | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 | 
| Date: | 2015-04-08 12:22:29 | 
| Message-ID: | 20150408122229.GA9764@awork2.anarazel.de | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 2015-04-08 14:17:04 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> And you guys are not getting my point. What I proposed was to not reuse the
> RI id immediately because that can make debugging issues with
> replication/conflict handling harder when something happens after cluster
> configuration has changed.
If that's the goal, you shouldn't delete the replication identifier at
that point. That's the only sane way preventing it from being reused.
> Whether it's done using Oid or some other way, I don't really care and
> wrapping around eventually is ok, since the old origin info for
> transactions will be cleared out during the freeze at the latest
> anyway.
How are you proposing to do the allocation then? There's no magic
preventing immediate reuse with oids or anything else. The oid counter
might *already* have wrapped around and point exactly to the identifier
you're about to delete. Then when you deleted it it's going to be reused
for the next allocated oid.
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-04-08 12:24:53 | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 | 
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-04-08 12:17:04 | Re: Replication identifiers, take 4 |