Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <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: 2021-03-01 03:21:18
Message-ID: CAA4eK1Kd02oubOOB193CE52CWC=PR=+dfW1PM4hd1fy2zvJ7vw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:33 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-02-23 09:24:18 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Okay, so is it sufficient to add comments in code, or do we want to
> > > add something in docs? I am not completely sure if we need to add in
> > > docs till we have core-implementation of prepare waiting to get
> > > logically replicated.
> >
> > There's plenty users of logical decoding that aren't going through the
> > normal replication mechanism - so they can hit this. So I think it needs
> > to be documented somewhere.
> >
>
> As per discussion, the attached patch updates both docs and comments
> in the code.
>

I have pushed this patch.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2021-03-01 03:21:53 Re: Reducing WaitEventSet syscall churn
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2021-03-01 03:20:26 Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD