| From: | Anna Akenteva <a(dot)akenteva(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Alexey Kondratov <a(dot)kondratov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
| Date: | 2020-04-14 09:52:07 |
| Message-ID: | b797f7c14fd5e1227bb05fd964831465@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-04-11 00:44, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think there's also some advantages of having it in a single statement
> for poolers. If a pooler analyzes BEGIN AFTER 'xx/xx' it could
> e.g. redirect the transaction to a node that's caught up far enough,
> instead of blocking. But that can't work even close to as easily if
> it's
> something that has to be executed before transaction begin.
>
I think that's a good point.
Also, I'm not sure how we'd expect a wait-for-LSN procedure to work
inside a single-snapshot transaction. Would it throw an error inside a
RR transaction block? Would it give a warning?
--
Anna Akenteva
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-04-14 10:10:50 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-04-14 09:45:39 | Re: Display of buffers for planning time show nothing for second run |