From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Date: | 2021-03-30 05:09:17 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm0ymZ9_KV4N35=nqti6CkrMFCxCc9cyS_CmmjD0=vmrLg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:34 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Please find attached the latest patch set v68*
>
> Differences from v67* are:
>
> * Rebased to HEAD @ today.
>
> * v68 fixes an issue reported by Vignesh [1] where a scenario was
> found which still was able to cause a generated GID clash. Using
> Vignesh's test script I could reproduce the problem exactly as
> described. The fix makes the GID unique by including the subid. Now
> the same script runs to normal completion and produces good/expected
> output:
>
> transaction | gid | prepared |
> owner | database
> -------------+------------------+-------------------------------+----------+----------
> 547 | pg_gid_16389_543 | 2021-03-30 10:32:36.87207+11 |
> postgres | postgres
> 555 | pg_gid_16390_543 | 2021-03-30 10:32:48.087771+11 |
> postgres | postgres
> (2 rows)
>
Thanks for the patch with the fix, the fix solves the issue reported.
Regards,
Vignesh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-03-30 05:30:24 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-30 04:51:15 | Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better |