| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
| Date: | 2024-02-21 07:53:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob+xa-ew4j9HPDdRmqkAs_O8+asEWaxGzeaNn41ro985w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > But I am wondering why this flag is always set to true in
> > DecodeTXNNeedSkip() irrespective of the commit or abort. Because the
> > aborted transactions are not supposed to be replayed? So if my
> > observation is correct that for the aborted transaction, this
> > shouldn't be set to true then we have a problem with sequence where we
> > are identifying the transactional changes as non-transaction changes
> > because now for transactional changes this should depend upon commit
> > status.
>
> I have checked this case with Amit Kapila. So it seems in the cases
> where we have sent the prepared transaction or streamed in-progress
> transaction we would need to send the abort also, and for that reason,
> we are setting 'ctx->processing_required' as true so that if these
> WALs are not streamed we do not allow upgrade of such slots.
I don't find this explanation clear enough for me to understand.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-02-21 07:59:45 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-02-21 07:46:48 | Re: ALTER TABLE SET ACCESS METHOD on partitioned tables |