| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II |
| Date: | 2016-08-22 20:32:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20160822203229.iktk5gv63psyz4lm@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-22 16:29:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I wish I could give you some better advice on this topic, but
> sadly I am not an expert in this area. However, it seems to me that
> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
> transactions T1 and T2, the order of replay must match the order of
> commit unless you can prove that there are no dependencies between
> them. I don't see why it matters whether the operations are sequence
> operations or data operations; it's just a question of whether they're
> modifying the same "stuff".
>
> Of course, it's possible I'm missing something important here...
Maybe that normally logical decoding outputs stuff in commit order?
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-22 20:32:46 | Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-22 20:29:12 | Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II |