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 CAA4eK1K+Zisk0TmcWnc6-zZWZXDLBkpaZsux+Zkj_JsGe-Ok5Q@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 3, 2021 at 9:18 AM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com
<osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
> > To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Amit Kapila
> > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>; Markus Wanner
> > <markus.wanner@enterprisedb.com>
> > Subject: Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > The attached PG docs patch about catalog deadlocks was previously
> > implemented in another thread [1], but it seems more relevant to this one.
> >
> > PSA.
> Thank you for providing the patch.
> I have updated your patch to include some other viewpoints.
>

I suggest creating a synchronous replication part of the patch for
back-branches as well.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?