| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, a(dot)akenteva(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
| Date: | 2020-04-09 13:33:41 |
| Message-ID: | 27171.1586439221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020/04/09 16:11, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> At Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:35:46 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
>>> Why is this getting grafted onto BEGIN/START TRANSACTION in the
>>> first place?
>> The rationale for not being a fmgr function is stated in the following
>> comments. [...]
> This issue happens because the function is executed after BEGIN? If yes,
> what about executing the function (i.e., as separate transaction) before BEGIN?
> If so, the snapshot taken in the function doesn't affect the subsequent
> transaction whatever its isolation level is.
I wonder whether making it a procedure, rather than a plain function,
would help any.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2020-04-09 13:38:16 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-04-09 13:31:31 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |