From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improve doc on parallel stream changes for Stream Abort message |
Date: | 2025-06-24 10:29:15 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L=ZJNqWd-VcTGrfAm3_+3OsrVULDuWOQ4gWNK-+Ls9tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:58 AM Anthonin Bonnefoy
<anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 7:26 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > How about a slightly modified version like: (a) The LSN of the abort
> > operation, present only when the change stream can be applied in
> > parallel. This field is available since protocol version 4. (b) Abort
> > timestamp of the transaction, present only when the change stream can
> > be applied in parallel. The value is in number of microseconds since
> > PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01). This field is available since protocol
> > version 4.
>
> What about ", present only when streaming is set to parallel"? I think
> clarifying the relation between streaming=parallel and the presence of
> those fields is the important part.
>
Works for me. I'll wait till tomorrow morning to see if there are any
further comments, and then push it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2025-06-24 10:40:58 | Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-06-24 10:20:54 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |