Re: Small fixes needed by high-availability tools

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small fixes needed by high-availability tools
Date: 2025-05-14 18:13:58
Message-ID: 1591B71B-3BC7-4F1F-BFAF-69C51E144299@yandex-team.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 14 May 2025, at 05:33, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> It might not necessarily be a flag—it could be some LSN value instead.
>> Also, it's not just about a "new transaction," but about any new
>> snapshot that could see data not yet replicated to the synchronous
>> standby.
>>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Let us see what others think about it.

I think this LSN is simply LSN where crash recovery ends...

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-05-14 19:25:58 Re: PostgreSQL 18 Beta 1 io_max_concurrency
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2025-05-14 16:20:00 Re: Assert failure in base_yyparse