From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 2PC support for pglogical |
Date: | 2016-03-24 14:03:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaSjH9jfS6XEHBq_FpKOxeO1FsH92b5OLp1ozYfXa3L2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 22:50, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Here is proof-of-concept version of two phase commit support for logical
>> replication.
>
> I missed this when you posted it, so sorry for the late response.
>
> I've read through this but not tested it yet. I really appreciate you doing
> it, it's been on my wishlist/backburner for ages.
>
> On reading through the patch I noticed that there doesn't seem to be any
> consideration of locking. The prepared xact can still hold strong locks on
> catalogs. How's that handled? I think Robert's group locking stuff is what
> we'll want here - for a prepared xact we can join the prepared xact as a
> group lock member so we inherit its locks. Right now if you try DDL in a
> prepared xact I suspect it'll break.
I have grave doubts about that approach. It's not impossible it could
be right, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-24 14:08:48 | Re: Small patch: fix code duplication in heapam.c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-24 14:01:30 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.6 behavior change with set returning (funct).* |