| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication vs. 2PC |
| Date: | 2021-03-21 09:47:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K1EHi1cZ=3bM5Ct1YpTP+PTyPLd-PwVqMOu6o0YLmFkw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 2:47 PM Markus Wanner
<markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 20.03.21 16:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Right, but I guess in our case using user-provided GID will conflict
> > if we use multiple subscriptions on the same node. So, it is better to
> > generate a unique identifier like we are discussing here, something
> > like (origin_id of subscription + xid of the publisher). Do you see
> > any problem with that?
>
> No, quite the opposite: I'm the one advocating the use of xids to
> identify transactions.
>
Okay.
> See my patch for filter_prepare.
>
I'll think once again from this angle and respond on that thread,
probably one use case could be for the plugins which use xid to
generate GID. In such cases, xid might be required to filter the
transaction.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-03-21 09:54:44 | Re: replication cleanup code incorrect way to use of HTAB HASH_REMOVE ? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-03-21 09:37:36 | Re: proposal - psql - use pager for \watch command |