| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cmpact commits and changeset extraction |
| Date: | 2013-10-01 10:20:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoabZVhFWZDk7w1sinLKu8YvrwJpcY=nid2ZkygC2mPhoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> What's wrong with #1?
>
> It seems confusing that a changeset stream in database #1 will contain
> commits (without corresponding changes) from database #2. Seems like aaa
> pola violation to me.
I don't really see the problem. A transaction could be empty for lots
of reasons; it may have obtained an XID without writing any data, or
whatever it's changed may be outside the bounds of logical rep. Maybe
you should just skip replay of transactions with no useful content.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-01 11:08:35 | Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-01 10:18:24 | Re: Minmax indexes |