Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhils(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date: 2018-03-30 19:07:14
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2018-03-30 21:05:29 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> You mean, if we detect abort in the write callback, set something in the
> context which will make all the future writes noop until it's reset
> again after we yield back to the logical decoding?

Something like that, yea. I *think* doing it via signalling is going to
be a more efficient design than constantly checking, but I've not
thought it fully through.

> That's not the most beautiful design I've seen, but I'd be okay with
> that, it seems like it would solve all the issues we have with this.

Yea, it's not too pretty, but seems pragmatic.


Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-03-30 19:14:22 Re: [HACKERS] pg_serial early wraparound
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2018-03-30 19:05:29 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions