Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions
Date: 2021-02-13 16:53:23
Message-ID: 20210213165323.7ri3f5wrgxjrpjum@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-02-13 17:37:29 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> Agreed, if we relied purely on flush location of a slot, there would
> be no need for origins to track the lsn.

And we would be latency bound replicating transactions, which'd not be
fun for single-insert ones for example...

> AFAIK this is exactly why origins are Wal logged along with
> transaction, it allows us to guarantee never getting anything that has
> beed durably written.

I think you'd need something like origins in that case, because
something could still go wrong before the other side has received the
flush (network disconnect, primary crash, ...).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2021-02-13 17:19:34 Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2021-02-13 16:37:29 Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions