| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
| Date: | 2023-11-27 11:27:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KmFmFbhPewsOE9xejYdpFVf9XDpNWZdzd2qKL7VCd3Aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 4:17 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > FWIW I think one of the earlier patch versions did something like this,
> > by adding a "created" flag in the xlog record. And we concluded doing
> > this on the decoding side is a better solution.
> >
>
> oh, I thought it would be much simpler than what we are doing on the
> decoding-side. Can you please point me to the email discussion where
> this is concluded or share the reason?
>
I'll check the thread about this point by myself as well but if by
chance you remember it then kindly share it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-11-27 11:42:25 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-11-27 11:20:03 | Re: Simplify xlogreader.c with XLogRec* macros |