| From: | "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com" <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "euler(at)eulerto(dot)com" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, "m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br" <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com" <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Date: | 2023-01-18 06:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | TYCPR01MB8373695228BDCD46C9ACA980EDC79@TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 2:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:37 AM Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
> <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Can you please explain a bit more as asked above to understand the
> > > difference?
> > So, the current difference is that the time-delayed apply worker of
> > logical replication doesn't apply the delayed transaction on the
> > subscriber when the subscription has been disabled during the delay,
> > while (in one example of a promotion) the physical replication does the apply
> of the delayed transaction.
> >
>
> I don't see any particular reason here to allow the transaction apply to complete
> if the subscription is disabled. Note, that here we are waiting at the beginning
> of the transaction and for large transactions, it might cause a significant delay if
> we allow applying the xact. OTOH, if someone comes up with a valid use case
> to allow the transaction apply to get completed after the subscription is
> disabled then we can anyway do it later as well.
This makes sense. I agree with you. So, I'll keep the current behavior of
the patch.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-18 06:39:26 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2023-01-18 06:10:38 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |