| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |
| Date: | 2016-04-08 18:37:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGULF-dWhu51JCebRZXz=nvOarYSOsv62ugjoKmrAcLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jesper Pedersen
<jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 02:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> So recovery is conflicting here. My guess is that this patch is
>> missing some lock cleanup.
>>
>> With the test case attached in my case the COMMIT PREPARED record does
>> not even get replayed.
>>
>
> Should we create an entry for the open item list [0] for this, due to the
> replication lag [1] ?
>
> CommitFest entry [2]
> Original commit [3]
>
> Cc'ed RMT.
If there is something you think needs to be fixed that is a new issue
in 9.6, then yes you should. I don't quite understand what thing is
from reading this, so please make sure to describe it clearly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-08 18:38:37 | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-04-08 18:37:29 | Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport |