| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Date: | 2025-01-31 06:39:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K-jFzBGLRCaY2VX0HhEaXOA2XgyEJF5Q6zA=Z_RnruFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:10 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have one question about the 0004 patch; it implemented
> max_conflict_retntion_duration as a subscription parameter. But the
> launcher invalidates the pg_conflict_detection slot only if all
> subscriptions with retain_conflict_info stopped retaining dead tuples
> due to the max_conflict_retention_duration parameter. Therefore, even
> if users set the parameter to a low value to avoid table bloats, it
> would not make sense if other subscriptions set it to a larger value.
> Is my understanding correct?
>
Yes, your understanding is correct. I think this could be helpful
during resolution because the worker for which the duration has
exceeded cannot detect conflicts reliably but others can. So, this
info can be useful while performing resolutions. Do you have an
opinion/suggestion on this matter?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-01-31 07:08:45 | Re: UUID v7 |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2025-01-31 06:27:50 | Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY? |