From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |
Date: | 2017-05-01 18:24:56 |
Message-ID: | 20170501182456.3orxw35x43ek5clc@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-05-01 11:22:47 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Petr Jelinek
> > <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Back when writing the original patch set, I was also playing with the
> >> idea of having CREATE SUBSCRIPTION do multiple committed steps in
> >> similar fashion to CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY but that leaves mess behind
> >> on failure which also wasn't very popular outcome.
>
> There is no inherent reason why the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY style of
> using multiple transactions makes it necessary to leave a mess behind
> in the event of an error or hard crash. Is someone going to get around
> to fixing the problem for CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (e.g., having
> extra steps to drop the useless index during recovery)? IIRC, this was
> always the plan.
Doing catalog changes in recovery is frought with problems. Essentially
requires starting one worker per database, before allowing access.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-05-01 18:25:08 | Re: BuildFarm client release 4.19 |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-05-01 18:22:47 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |