| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 8/8] Introduce wal decoding via catalog timetravel |
| Date: | 2012-10-11 01:40:14 |
| Message-ID: | 16177.1349919614@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> The purpose of ApplyCache/transaction reassembly is to reassemble
>> interlaced records, and organise them by XID, so that the consumer
>> client code sees only streams (well, lists) of records split by XID.
> I think I've mentioned it before, but in the interest of not being
> seen to critique the bikeshed only after it's been painted: this
> design gives up something very important that exists in our current
> built-in replication solution, namely pipelining.
Isn't there an even more serious problem, namely that this assumes
*all* transactions are serializable? What happens when they aren't?
Or even just that the effective commit order is not XID order?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-11 01:46:15 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable _FORTIFY_SOURCE with ICC |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-10-11 01:39:21 | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] |