Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II
Date
Msg-id 20160822203229.iktk5gv63psyz4lm@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016-08-22 16:29:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I wish I could give you some better advice on this topic, but
> sadly I am not an expert in this area.  However, it seems to me that
> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
> transactions T1 and T2, the order of replay must match the order of
> commit unless you can prove that there are no dependencies between
> them.  I don't see why it matters whether the operations are sequence
> operations or data operations; it's just a question of whether they're
> modifying the same "stuff".
> 
> Of course, it's possible I'm missing something important here...

Maybe that normally logical decoding outputs stuff in commit order?

Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] Temporary tables that do not bloat pg_catalog (a.k.a fast temp tables)