| From: | Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication |
| Date: | 2024-08-16 11:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | CANtu0oi1wajvk-ojMcLqCRvU-cbWv5X=N3VMRzOMkHnN-+tF8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello!
> I think you might misunderstand the behavior of CheckAndReportConflict(),
even
> if it found a conflict, it still inserts the tuple into the index which
means
> the change is anyway applied.
> In the above conditions where a concurrent tuple insertion is removed
> or rolled back before CheckAndReportConflict, the tuple inserted by
> apply will remain. There is no need to report anything in such cases
> as apply was successful.
Yes, thank you for explanation, I was thinking UNIQUE_CHECK_PARTIAL works
differently.
But now I think DirtySnapshot-related bug is a blocker for this feature
then, I'll reply into original after rechecking it.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2024-08-16 11:47:47 | Ineffective Assert-check in CopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() |
| Previous Message | Nishant Sharma | 2024-08-16 11:27:42 | Re: [PROPOSAL] : Disallow use of empty column name in (column_name '') in ALTER or CREATE of foreign table. |