From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v6.1 |
Date: | 2013-10-08 19:40:34 |
Message-ID: | 20131008194034.GA3718183@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-08 15:02:39 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 09:32 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >Todo:
> >* rename treat_as_catalog_table, after agreeing on the new name
> >* rename remaining timetravel function names
> >* restrict SuspendDecodingSnapshots usage to RelationInitPhysicalAddr,
> > that ought to be enough.
> >* add InLogicalDecoding() function.
> >* throw away older data when reading xl_running_xacts records, to deal
> > with immediate shutdowns/crashes
>
> What is your current plan for decoding sequence updates? Is this something
> that you were going to hold-off on supporting till a future version? ( know
> this was discussed a while ago but I don't remember where it stands now)
I don't plan to implement it as part of this - the optimizations in
sequences make it really unsuitable for that (nontransaction, allocated
in bulk, ...).
Simon had previously posted about "sequence AMs", and I have a prototype
patch that implements that concept (which needs considerable cleanup). I
plan to post about it whenever this is finished.
I think many replication solutions that care about sequences in a
nontrivial will want to implement their own sequence logic anyway, so I
think that's not a bad path.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-08 19:47:58 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.1 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-08 19:40:04 | Re: dynamic shared memory |