From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | José Neves <rafaneves3(at)msn(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CDC/ETL system on top of logical replication with pgoutput, custom client |
Date: | 2023-08-08 13:37:37 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+2wZ9-uNDOAq05QDYAQLOekZAGiRvCbLgoaDuYO2u84A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:46 PM José Neves <rafaneves3(at)msn(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Humm, that's... challenging. I faced some issues after "the fix" because I had a couple of transactions with 25k updates, and I had to split it to be able to push to our event messaging system, as our max message size is 10MB. Relying on commit time would mean that all transaction operations will have the same timestamp. If something goes wrong while my worker is pushing that transaction data chunks, I will duplicate some data in the next run, so... this wouldn't allow me to deal with data duplication.
> Is there any other way that you see to deal with it?
>
> Right now I only see an option, which is to store all processed LSNs on the other side of the ETL. I'm trying to avoid that overhead.
>
Sorry, I don't understand your system enough to give you suggestions
but if you have any questions related to how logical replication work
then I might be able to help.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-08-08 13:39:42 | Re: 2023-08-10 release announcement draft |
Previous Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2023-08-08 11:40:53 | Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions |