| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Date: | 2025-04-16 05:00:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uARMY=JRGRmThMXFhqbjNB-qc2Brnw6dxnoLhGKkq58uA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Here's a rebased version of the patch series.
>
Thanks Hou-San for the patches. I am going through this long thread
and patches. One doubt I have is whenever there is a chance of
conflict-slot update (either xmin or possibility of its invalidation),
apply-worker gives a wake-up call to the launcher
(ApplyLauncherWakeup). Shouldn't that suffice to wake-up launcher
irrespective of its nap-time? Do we actually need to introduce
MIN/MAX_NAPTIME_PER_SLOT_UPDATE in the launcher and the logic around
it?
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-04-16 05:24:48 | Re: Built-in Raft replication |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-04-16 04:58:55 | Re: Built-in Raft replication |