On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 16:41 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 5/25/2010 12:03 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 16:21 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> >> In some systems (data warehousing, replication), the order of commits is
> >> important, since that is the order in which changes have become visible.
> >> This information could theoretically be extracted from the WAL, but
> >> scanning the entire WAL just to extract this tidbit of information would
> >> be excruciatingly painful.
> >
> > I think it would be quite simple to read WAL. WALSender reads the WAL
> > file after its been flushed, so it would be simple for it to read a blob
> > of WAL and then extract the commit order from it.
> >
> > Overall though, it would be easier and more efficient to *add* info to
> > WAL and then do all this processing *after* WAL has been transported
> > elsewhere. Extracting info with DDL triggers, normal triggers, commit
> > order and everything else seems like too much work to me. Every other
> > RDBMS has moved away from trigger-based replication and we should give
> > that serious consideration also.
>
> Reading the entire WAL just to find all COMMIT records, then go back to
> the origin database to get the actual replication log you're looking for
> is simpler and more efficient? I don't think so.
Agreed, but I think I've not explained myself well enough.
I proposed two completely separate ideas; the first one was this:
If you must get commit order, get it from WAL on *origin*, using exact
same code that current WALSender provides, plus some logic to read
through the WAL records and extract commit/aborts. That seems much
simpler than the proposal you outlined and as SR shows, its low latency
as well since commits write to WAL. No need to generate event ticks
either, just use XLogRecPtrs as WALSender already does.
I see no problem with integrating that into core, technically or
philosophically.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
