Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Date: 2021-01-23 05:38:02
Message-ID: CAFPTHDZnAvNqnWJsYhWTLQwf4q_7fp0h2PtDYrrxoFDR4cPDZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 3:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> I think so. But do you have any reason to believe that it won't be
> required anymore?

A temporary slot will not clash with a permanent slot of the same name,

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2021-01-23 06:20:12 Re: Logical Replication - behavior of ALTER PUBLICATION .. DROP TABLE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION .. REFRESH PUBLICATION
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-01-23 05:24:23 Re: doc review for v14