| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
| Date: | 2021-06-03 10:07:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K+Zisk0TmcWnc6-zZWZXDLBkpaZsux+Zkj_JsGe-Ok5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 9:18 AM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Amit Kapila
> > <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>; Markus Wanner
> > <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> > Subject: Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > The attached PG docs patch about catalog deadlocks was previously
> > implemented in another thread [1], but it seems more relevant to this one.
> >
> > PSA.
> Thank you for providing the patch.
> I have updated your patch to include some other viewpoints.
>
I suggest creating a synchronous replication part of the patch for
back-branches as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-06-03 10:54:28 | Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-06-03 09:56:08 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |