Re: SI messages sent when excuting ROLLBACK PREPARED command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SI messages sent when excuting ROLLBACK PREPARED command
Date: 2021-07-14 17:36:11
Message-ID: 3520606.1626284171@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> So, I think we needn't send SI messags when rollbacking the two-phase transaction.
> Or Does it has something special because of two-phase transaction?

Hmmm, yeah, I think you're right. It probably doesn't make a big
difference in the real world --- anyone who's dependent on the
performance of 2PC rollbaxks is Doing It Wrong. But we'd have
already done LocalExecuteInvalidationMessage when getting out of
the prepared transaction, so no other SI invals should be needed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2021-07-14 17:55:13 Re: [PATCH] Use optimized single-datum tuplesort in ExecSort
Previous Message Euler Taveira 2021-07-14 17:25:20 Re: row filtering for logical replication