Horton

Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-02-09T08:07:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Looking at the V29 style tablesync slot names now they appear like this:

WARNING:  could not drop tablesync replication slot
"pg_16397_sync_16389_6927117142022745645"
That is in the order subid +  relid + sysid

Now that I see it in a message it seems a bit strange with the sysid
just tacked onto the end like that.

I am wondering if reordering of parent to child might be more natural.
e.g sysid + subid + relid gives a more intuitive name IMO.

So in this example it would be "pg_sync_6927117142022745645_16397_16389"

Thoughts?

----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia

Commits

  1. Fix relcache reference leak introduced by ce0fdbfe97.

  2. Fix Subscription test added by commit ce0fdbfe97.

  3. Allow multiple xacts during table sync in logical replication.

  4. Logical replication support for initial data copy