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: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-11T20:23:18Z
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, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:29 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > I agree that it's fine for the sequence to be slightly ahead, but I > > think that it can't be too far ahead without causing problems. Suppose > > for example that transaction #1 creates a sequence. Transaction #2 > > does nextval on the sequence a bunch of times and inserts rows into a > > table using the sequence values as the PK. It's fine if the nextval > > operations are replicated ahead of the commit of transaction #2 -- in > > fact I'd say it's necessary for correctness -- but they can't precede > > the commit of transaction #1, since then the sequence won't exist yet. > > It's not clear to me how could that even happen. If transaction #1 > creates a sequence, it's invisible for transaction #2. So how could it > do nextval() on it? #2 has to wait for #1 to commit before it can do > anything on the sequence, which enforces the correct ordering, no? Yeah, I meant if #1 had committed and then #2 started to do its thing. I was worried that decoding might reach the nextval operations in transaction #2 before it replayed #1. This worry may be entirely based on me not understanding how this actually works. Do we always apply a transaction as soon as we see the commit record for it, before decoding any further? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com