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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhils(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <y(dot)sokolov(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: 2018-04-03 14:37:36
Message-ID: 20180403143736.z42lxviikrf4iyxc@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra wrote:

> Yes, that is a good point actually - we need to test that replication
> between PG10 and PG11 works correctly, i.e. that the protocol version is
> correctly negotiated, and features are disabled/enabled accordingly etc.

Maybe it'd be good to have a buildfarm animal to specifically test for
that?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-04-03 14:38:55 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Greg Stark 2018-04-03 14:37:30 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS