| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh(dot)rs0541(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Converting WAL to SQL |
| Date: | 2022-01-05 17:19:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_b4+gXZHgDDUdsK=wH6EW59JZRCZ7G_fJ44rYzsgrrRGQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:19 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:47:47AM -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >
> >
> > What we did was decode the 9.6 wal files and apply transactions to the
> > old 9.2 to keep it in sync with the new promoted version. This was our
> > "rollback" strategy if something went wrong with the new 9.6 version.
>
> How did you deal with the issue that SQL isn't granular enough (vs.
> row-level changes) to reproduce the result reliably, as outlined here?
This is a logical decoding plugin, so it's SQL containing decoded
row-level changes. It will behave the same as a
publication/suscription (apart from being far less performant, due to
being plain SQL of course).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-05 17:46:43 | Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2022-01-05 17:09:16 | Re: make tuplestore helper function |