Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication
Date: 2017-11-29 23:47:57
Message-ID: 20171129234757.thjn6upu42u7zgyf@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-11-30 00:45:44 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I don't understand. I mean sure the SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() can live
> with it, but the problematic logic happens inside the
> XactLockTableInsert() and SnapBuildWaitSnapshot() has no way of
> detecting the situation short of reimplementing the
> XactLockTableInsert() instead of calling it.

Right. But we fairly trivially can change that. I'm remarking on it
because other people's, not yours, suggestions aimed at making this
bulletproof. I just wanted to make clear that I don't think that's
necessary at all.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-30 00:07:06 Use of uninitialized variables in ExecFindPartition() for parent partition without leaves (HEAD only)
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-11-29 23:45:44 Re: [HACKERS] Issues with logical replication