Horton

Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>, "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-08-13T06:18:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 5:41 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A minor comment on the 0001 patch: In the message I think that using
> > > > "ID" would look better than lowercase "id" and AFAICS it's more
> > > > consistent with existing messages.
> > > >
> > > > + appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction id %u with commit timestamp %s"),
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have a point but I think in this case it might look a bit odd as
> > > we have another field 'commit timestamp' after that which is
> > > lowercase.
> > >
> >
> > I did a quick search and I couldn't find any other messages in the
> > Postgres code that use "transaction id", but I could find some that
> > use "transaction ID" and "transaction identifier".
> >
>
> Okay, but that doesn't mean using it here is bad. I am personally fine
> with a message containing something like "... in transaction
> id 740 with commit timestamp 2021-08-10 14:44:38.058174+05:30" but I
> won't mind if you and or others find some other way convenient. Any
> opinion from others?
>

Just to be clear, all I was saying is that I thought using uppercase
"ID" looked better in the message, and was more consistent with
existing logged messages, than using lowercase "id".
i.e. my suggestion was a trivial change:

BEFORE:
+ appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction id %u with commit timestamp %s"),
AFTER:
+ appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction ID %u with commit timestamp %s"),

But it was just a suggestion. Maybe others feel differently.

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia

Commits

  1. Test ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==4 compatibility under ALIGNOF_DOUBLE==8.

  2. Reorder subskiplsn in pg_subscription to avoid alignment issues.

  3. Add ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SKIP.

  4. Optionally disable subscriptions on error.

  5. Update docs of logical replication for commit 8d74fc96db.

  6. Respect permissions within logical replication.

  7. Fix regression test failure caused by commit 8d74fc96db.

  8. Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.

  9. Add logical change details to logical replication worker errcontext.

  10. Rename LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END to LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_STOP.

  11. Fix typo in protocol.sgml.

  12. Remove unused argument in apply_handle_commit_internal().

  13. Fix replication of in-progress transactions in tablesync worker.

  14. Reorder pg_sequence columns to avoid alignment issue