| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(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: | 2024-11-29 10:52:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KHcwG64ViK52LR-VANSH-2EsH=q1j7qPV85zDLbgVOZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 4:05 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 07. wait_for_publisher_status
>
> I think all calculations and checking in the function can be done even on the
> walsender. Based on this, I come up with an idea to reduce the message size:
> walsender can just send a status (boolean) whether there are any running transactions
> instead of oldest xid, next xid and their epoch. Or, it is more important to reduce the
> amount of calc. on publisher side?
>
Won't it be tricky to implement this tracking on publisher side?
Because we not only need to check that there is no running xact but
also that the oldest_running_xact that was present last time when the
status message arrived has finished. Won't this need more bookkeeping
on publisher's side?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2024-11-29 11:00:13 | Re: EphemeralNamedRelation and materialized view |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2024-11-29 10:35:20 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |