Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Subject | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+co4hRncuXHx1=46DeqkbyYvJAp9BoiZoC7i=geRcsGw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep ("osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>) |
Responses |
Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 8:41 AM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:33 PM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com > > <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 2:13 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Attached the patch-set that addressed those two comments. > > > > > > > Few minor comments: > > 1. > > + <listitem> > > + <para> > > + Clustering <structname>pg_class</structname> in a transaction. > > > > Can we change above to: Perform <command>CLUSTER</command> on > > <structname>pg_class</structname> in a transaction. > Looks better. > > > > > 2. > > + <listitem> > > + <para> > > + Executing <command>TRUNCATE</command> on user catalog > > table > > in a transaction. > > + </para> > > > > Square brackets are missing for user. > Thanks for catching it. You are right. > > > > 3. > > + <indexterm> > > + <primary>Overview</primary> > > + </indexterm> > > .. > > .. > > + <indexterm> > > + <primary>Caveats</primary> > > + </indexterm> > > > > Why are these required when we already have titles? I have seen other places > > in the docs where we use titles for Overview and Caveats but they didn't have > > similar usage. > Sorry, this was a mistake. We didn't need those sections. > > > > 4. > > <para> > > + Performing <command>PREPARE TRANSACTION</command> > > after > > <command>LOCK</command> > > + command on <structname>pg_class</structname> and logical > > decoding of published > > + table. > > > > Can we change above to: <command>PREPARE > > TRANSACTION</command> after <command>LOCK</command> > > command on <structname>pg_class</structname> and allow logical > > decoding of two-phase transactions. > > > > 5. > > + <para> > > + Clustering <structname>pg_trigger</structname> and decoding > > <command>PREPARE > > + TRANSACTION</command>, if any published table have a trigger > > and any > > + operations that will be decoded are conducted. > > + </para> > > > > Can we change above to: <command>PREPARE > > TRANSACTION</command> after <command>CLUSTER</command> > > command on <structname>pg_trigger</structname> and allow logical > > decoding of two-phase transactions. This will lead to deadlock only when > > published table have a trigger. > Yeah, I needed the nuance to turn on logical decoding of two-phase transactions... > Your above suggestions are much tidier and more accurate than mine. > I agree with your all suggestions. > Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
pgsql-hackers by date: