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.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com