Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2024-02-15T04:16:30Z
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
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:21 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > The way I think about non-transactional sequence changes is as if they > were tiny transactions that happen "fully" (including commit) at the LSN > where the LSN change is logged. 100% this. > It does not mean we can arbitrarily reorder the changes, it only means > the changes are applied as if they were independent transactions (but in > the same order as they were executed originally). Both with respect to > the other non-transactional changes, and to "commits" of other stuff. Right, this is very important and I agree completely. I'm feeling more confident about this now that I heard you say that stuff -- this is really the key issue I've been worried about since I first looked at this, and I wasn't sure that you were in agreement, but it sounds like you are. I think we should (a) fix the locking bug I found (but that can be independent of this patch) and (b) make sure that this patch documents the points from the quoted material above so that everyone who reads the code (and maybe tries to enhance it) is clear on what the assumptions are. (I haven't checked whether it documents that stuff or not. I'm just saying it should, because I think it's a subtlety that someone might miss.) -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com