From: | "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Amit Kapila" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: POC and rebased patch for CSN based snapshots |
Date: | 2020-07-13 06:46:23 |
Message-ID: | 2020071314462009503617@highgo.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>I have doubts that I fully understood your question, but still.
>What real problems do you see here? Transaction t1 doesn't get state of
>shard2 until time at node with shard2 won't reach start time of t1.
>If transaction, that inserted B wants to know about it position in time
>relatively to t1 it will generate CSN, attach to node1 and will see,
>that t1 is not started yet.
>Maybe you are saying about the case that someone who has a faster data
>channel can use the knowledge from node1 to change the state at node2?
>If so, i think it is not a problem, or you can explain your idea.
Sorry, I think this is my wrong understand about Clock-SI. At first I expect
we can get a absolutly snapshot, for example B should not include in the
snapshot because it happened after time t1. How ever Clock-SI can not guarantee
that and no design guarantee that at all.
Regards,
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-07-13 06:59:56 | Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs. |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-07-13 06:34:06 | Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs. |