| 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: | 2021-02-23 03:54:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L7wFCHg0u92TP9MUGHTSKprQZHf-L6Qc2YuGMCiiLy3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:09 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2021-02-23 08:56:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:58 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > Perhaps all that we need to do is to disallow 2PC prepare if [user]
> > > catalog tables have been locked exclusively?
>
> > Right, and we have discussed this during development [1][2].
>
> I remember bringing it up before as well... Issues like this really need
> to be mentioned as explicit caveats at least somewhere in the code and
> commit message.
>
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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-02-23 04:03:15 | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
| Previous Message | tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-02-23 03:43:55 | Tuples unbalance distribution among workers in underlying parallel select with serial insert |