Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?
Date
Msg-id 20170906192353.ufp2dq7wm5fd6qa7@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least9.5)?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-09-06 17:36:02 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> At Mon, 4 Sep 2017 17:17:19 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqSPf0qkq=DhSO-tAM9++LSA2aEYSVJ3oY_EdUdb=jKi1w@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > I've not read through the thread, but this seems like the wrong approach
> > > to me. The receiving side should use a correct value, instead of putting
> > > this complexity on the sender's side.
> > 
> > Yes I agree with that. The current patch gives me a bad feeling to be
> > honest with the way it does things..
> 
> The problem is that the current ReadRecord needs the first one of
> a series of continuation records from the same source with the
> other part, the master in the case.

What's the problem with that?  We can easily keep track of the beginning
of a record, and only confirm the address before that.


> A (or the) solution closed in the standby side is allowing to
> read a seris of continuation records from muliple sources.

I'm not following. All we need to use is the beginning of the relevant
records, that's easy enough to keep track of. We don't need to read the
WAL or anything.

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics