Re: 2PC support for pglogical

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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).*