Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Date: 2021-12-09 09:16:13
Message-ID: CAA4eK1La0Oum41L9=bgdU6AjJXY7TvPXEWhgm+sKtdg3JCY27w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:24 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:47 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I am thinking that we can start a transaction, update the catalog,
> > commit that transaction. Then start a new one to update
> > origin_lsn/timestamp, finishprepared, and commit it. Now, if it
> > crashes after the first transaction, only commit prepared will be
> > resent again and this time we don't need to update the catalog as that
> > entry would be already cleared.
>
> Sounds good. In the crash case, it should be fine since we will just
> commit an empty transaction. The same is true for the case where
> skip_xid has been changed after skipping and preparing the transaction
> and before handling commit_prepared.
>
> Regarding the case where the user specifies XID of the transaction
> after it is prepared on the subscriber (i.g., the transaction is not
> empty), we won’t skip committing the prepared transaction. But I think
> that we don't need to support skipping already-prepared transaction
> since such transaction doesn't conflict with anything regardless of
> having changed or not.
>

Yeah, this makes sense to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-12-09 09:26:01 Re: Replace uses of deprecated Python module distutils.sysconfig
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-12-09 08:53:49 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side