Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1L0RmgUuhxRj3DfWuE7iHGzT-NCxbaFVur02R4SUu=x=Q@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 7:54 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:02 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't this happen only if you set replication origins? Because > > > > otherwise both PrepareTransaction() and > > > > RecordTransactionCommitPrepared() used the current timestamp. > > > > > > > > > > I was also checking this, even if you set replicating origins, the > > > preparedTransaction will reflect the local prepare time in > > > pg_prepared_xacts. pg_prepared_xacts fetches this information > > > from GlobalTransaction data which does not store the origin_timestamp; > > > it only stores the prepared_at which is the local timestamp. > > > > > > > Sure, but my question was does this difference in behavior happens > > without replication origins in any way? The reason is that if it > > occurs only with replication origins, I don't think we need to bother > > about the same because that feature is not properly implemented and > > not used as-is. See the discussion [1] [2]. OTOH, if this behavior can > > happen without replication origins then we might want to consider > > changing it. > > Logical replication workers always have replication origins, right? Is > that what you meant 'with replication origins'? > I was thinking with respect to the publisher-side but you are right that logical apply workers always have replication origins so the effect will be visible but I think the same should be true on publisher without this patch as well. Say, the user has set up replication origin via pg_replication_origin_xact_setup and provided a value of timestamp then also the same behavior will be there. > IIUC logical replication workers always set the origin's commit > timestamp as the commit timestamp of the replicated transaction. OTOH, > the timestamp of PREPARE, ‘prepare’ of pg_prepared_xacts, always uses > the local timestamp even if the caller of PrepareTransaction() sets > replorigin_session_origin_timestamp. In terms of user-visible > timestamps of transaction operations, I think users might expect these > timestamps are matched between the origin and its subscribers. But the > pg_xact_commit_timestamp() is a function of the commit timestamp > feature whereas ‘prepare’ is a pure timestamp when the transaction is > prepared. So I’m not sure these timestamps really need to be matched, > though. > Yeah, I am not sure if it is a good idea for users to rely on this especially if the same behavior is visible on the publisher as well. We might want to think separately if there is a value in making prepare-time to also rely on replorigin_session_origin_timestamp and if so, that can be done as a separate patch. What do you think? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
pgsql-hackers by date: