On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:01 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 9:54 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean to say that you want to omit it even when we are
> > committing the changes?
> >
> > > Apart from that, I'm vaguely concerned that the logic seems to be
> > > getting complex. Probably it comes from the fact that we store
> > > skip_xid in the catalog and update the catalog to clear/set the
> > > skip_xid. It might be worth revisiting the idea of storing skip_xid on
> > > shmem (e.g., ReplicationState)?
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, the problem with that idea was that we won't remember skip_xid
> > information after server restart and the user won't even know that it
> > has to set it again.
>
>
> I agree, that if we don't keep it in the catalog then after restart if
> the transaction replayed again then the user has to set the skip xid
> again and that would be pretty inconvenient because the user might
> have to analyze the failure again and repeat the same process he did
> before restart. But OTOH the combination of restart and the skip xid
> might not be very frequent so this might not be a very bad option.
> Basically, I am in favor of storing it in a catalog as that solution
> looks cleaner at least from the user pov but if we think there are a
> lot of complexities from the implementation pov then we might analyze
> the approach of storing in shmem as well.
>
Fair point, but I think it is better to see the patch or the problems
that can't be solved if we pursue storing it in catalog. Even, if we
decide to store it in shmem, we need to invent some way to inform the
user that we have not honored the previous setting of skip_xid and it
needs to be reset again.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.