On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 06:20:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> >> What's wrong with #1?
>> >
>> > It seems confusing that a changeset stream in database #1 will contain
>> > commits (without corresponding changes) from database #2. Seems like aaa
>> > pola violation to me.
>>
>> I don't really see the problem. A transaction could be empty for lots
>> of reasons; it may have obtained an XID without writing any data, or
>> whatever it's changed may be outside the bounds of logical rep.
>
> Sure. But all of them will have had a corresponding action in the
> database. If your replication stream suddenly sees commits that you
> cannot connect to any application activity... And it would depend on the
> kind of commit, you won't see it if a non-compact commit was used.
> It also means we need to do work to handle that commit. If you have a
> busy and a less so database and you're only replicating the non-busy
> one, that might be noticeable.
Maybe. The original reason we added compact commits was because we
thought that making unlogged tables logged and visca/versa was going
to require adding still more stuff to the commit record. I'm no
longer sure that's the case and, in any case, nobody's worked out the
design details. But I can't help thinking more stuff's likely to come
up in the future. I'm certainly willing to entertain proposals for
restructuring that, but I don't really want to just throw it out.
>> Maybe you should just skip replay of transactions with no useful
>> content.
>
> Yes, I have thought about that as well. But I dislike it - how do we
> define "no useful content"?
The only action we detected for that XID was the commit itself.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
