| 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>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Date: | 2021-03-15 12:44:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAFPTHDZvpeE5Gznq9Cno0U2NhByzTrmuvw9-GOCvygvZFvREhg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think something on these lines should be much
> easier than the spool-file implementation unless we see any problem
> with this idea.
>
>
Here's a new patch-set that implements this new solution proposed by Amit.
Patchset-v60 implements:
* renamed initial_consistent_point to two_phase_at and set it when a stream
is started with two_phase on or slot is created with two_phase on.
* replication slots are created with two_phase off on start.
* start stream with two_phase on only after all tables are in READY state.
* Initially the two_phase parameter of the subscription defaults to PENDING
and is only enabled once all tables are in READY state.
* restrict REFRESH PUBLICATION with copy = true on subscriptions with
two_phase enabled.
* documentation updates
Pending work:
* add documentation for START REPLICATION syntax change.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v60-0002-Support-2PC-txn-subscriber-tests.patch | application/octet-stream | 24.4 KB |
| v60-0003-Fix-apply-worker-dev-logs.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.1 KB |
| v60-0001-Add-support-for-apply-at-prepare-time-to-built-i.patch | application/octet-stream | 104.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2021-03-15 12:47:17 | Re: pg_ls_tmpdir to show directories and shared filesets (and pg_ls_*) |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-03-15 12:34:00 | Re: Strange behavior with polygon and NaN |