Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-11T21:53:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Migrate logical slots to the new node during an upgrade.
- 29d0a77fa660 17.0 cited
-
Make test_decoding ddl.out shorter
- d6677b93c79b 17.0 landed
- c5c5832600e9 14.9 landed
- b1dc946eee3d 16.0 landed
- 3bb8b9342f8a 15.4 landed
-
Fix snapshot handling in logicalmsg_decode
- 949ac32e1267 15.3 landed
- 8b9cbd42b61f 14.8 landed
- 4df581fa0f4b 13.11 landed
- 497f863f0598 12.15 landed
- 8de91ebf2ac1 11.20 landed
- 7fe1aa991b62 16.0 landed
-
doc: Adjust a few more references to "postmaster"
- 17e72ec45d31 16.0 cited
-
Revert "Logical decoding of sequences"
- 2c7ea57e56ca 15.0 cited
Hi, On 2023-01-11 22:30:42 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 1/11/23 21:58, Andres Freund wrote: > > If you're thinking of decoding changes in parallel (rather than streaming out > > large changes before commit when possible), you'd only be able to do that in > > cases when transaction haven't performed catalog changes, I think. In which > > case there'd also be no issue wrt transactional sequence changes. > > > > Perhaps, although it's not clear to me how would you know that in > advance? I mean, you could start decoding changes in parallel, and then > you find one of the earlier transactions touched a catalog. You could have a running count of in-progress catalog modifying transactions and not allow parallelized processing when that's not 0. > Bu maybe I misunderstand what "decoding" refers to - don't we need the > snapshot only in reorderbuffer? In which case all the other stuff could > be parallelized (not sure if that's really expensive). Calling output functions is pretty expensive, so being able to call those in parallel has some benefits. But I don't think we're there. > Anyway, all of this is far out of scope of this patch. Yea, clearly that's independent work. And I don't think relying on commit order in one more place, i.e. for sequences, would make it harder. Greetings, Andres Freund