From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Converting WAL to SQL |
Date: | 2022-01-05 18:50:52 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+q26fpvCjLCKBNPwJ=DZYSgjCMiNPvfNKVN+s8CG17NxQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:19 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:47:47AM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What we did was decode the 9.6 wal files and apply transactions to the
> > > old 9.2 to keep it in sync with the new promoted version. This was our
> > > "rollback" strategy if something went wrong with the new 9.6 version.
> >
> > How did you deal with the issue that SQL isn't granular enough (vs.
> > row-level changes) to reproduce the result reliably, as outlined here?
>
> This is a logical decoding plugin, so it's SQL containing decoded
> row-level changes. It will behave the same as a
> publication/suscription (apart from being far less performant, due to
> being plain SQL of course).
Exactly!
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-05 18:54:49 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PQcancel does not use tcp_user_timeout, connect_timeout and keepalive settings |
Previous Message | Daniel Westermann (DWE) | 2022-01-05 18:48:57 | Are we missing a dot in initdb's output? |