From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kartyshov Ivan <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, smithpb2250(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: | 2024-03-16 10:56:22 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+FsVRV5bH9838XzSRdiB9eKUFcPpGCknhZ9tHePWbuNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I went through this patch another time, and made some minor
> adjustments. Now it looks good, I'm going to push it if no
> objections.
>
I have a question related to usability, if the regular reads (say a
Select statement or reads via function/procedure) need a similar
guarantee to see the changes on standby then do they also always need
to first do something like "BEGIN AFTER '0/3F0FF791' WITHIN 1000;"? Or
in other words, shouldn't we think of something for implicit
transactions?
In general, it seems this patch has been stuck for a long time on the
decision to choose an appropriate UI (syntax), and we thought of
moving it further so that the other parts of the patch can be
reviewed/discussed. So, I feel before pushing this we should see
comments from a few (at least two) other senior members who earlier
shared their opinion on the syntax. I know we don't have much time
left but OTOH pushing such a change (where we didn't have a consensus
on syntax) without much discussion at this point of time could lead to
discussions after commit.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wolfgang Walther | 2024-03-16 11:48:31 | Building with meson on NixOS/nixpkgs |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-03-16 10:24:46 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |