Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tomas Vondra
Тема Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Дата
Msg-id 7f33efcf-d28d-cc22-3430-665adbb0dbf2@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Stas Kelvich <s.kelvich@postgrespro.ru>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers

On 04/03/2018 04:07 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 3 Apr 2018, at 16:56, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So I think we need a subscription parameter to enable/disable this,
>> defaulting to 'disabled’.
> 
> +1
> 
> Also, current value for LOGICALREP_IS_COMMIT is 1, but previous code expected
> flags to be zero, so this way logical replication between postgres-10 and
> postgres-with-2pc-decoding will be broken. So ISTM it’s better to set
> LOGICALREP_IS_COMMIT to zero and change flags checking rules to accommodate that.
> 

Yes, that is a good point actually - we need to test that replication
between PG10 and PG11 works correctly, i.e. that the protocol version is
correctly negotiated, and features are disabled/enabled accordingly etc.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Verify Checksums during Basebackups
Следующее
От: Greg Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS