| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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: | 2021-03-24 10:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB57164956F553382A6D98578994639@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I have incorporated all your changes and additionally made few more changes
> (a) got rid of LogicalRepBeginPrepareData and instead used
> LogicalRepPreparedTxnData, (b) made a number of changes in comments and
> docs, (c) ran pgindent, (d) modified tests to use standard wait_for_catch
> function and removed few tests to reduce the time and to keep regression
> tests reliable.
Hi,
When reading the code, I found some comments related to the patch here.
* XXX Now, this can even lead to a deadlock if the prepare
* transaction is waiting to get it logically replicated for
* distributed 2PC. Currently, we don't have an in-core
* implementation of prepares for distributed 2PC but some
* out-of-core logical replication solution can have such an
* implementation. They need to inform users to not have locks
* on catalog tables in such transactions.
*/
Since we will have in-core implementation of prepares, should we update the comments here ?
Best regards,
houzj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-03-24 10:52:04 | RE: Add Nullif case for eval_const_expressions_mutator |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-03-24 10:22:06 | Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions |