| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Давыдов Виталий <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |
| Date: | 2024-07-04 06:55:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jpj2Ebk2C_9meEDfZKen38cxpzOkxZ7818f1cfsT8=3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:26 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
```
>
> It succeeds if force_alter is also expressly set. Prepared transactions will be
> aborted at that time.
>
> ```
> subscriber=# ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub SET (two_phase = off, force_alter = on);
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
>
Isn't it better to give a Notice when force_alter option leads to the
rollback of already prepared transactions?
I have another question on the latest 0001 patch:
+ /*
+ * Stop all the subscription workers, just in case.
+ * Workers may still survive even if the subscription is
+ * disabled.
+ */
+ logicalrep_workers_stop(subid);
In which case the workers will survive when the subscription is disabled?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-07-04 07:13:54 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-07-04 06:51:48 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |