Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1L_z85CxQkq4NSht-tRv-TYYK2GgoRU11fD8Yz_660m1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication  (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>
> Attach the V4 patch set which addressed above comments.
>

A few minor comments:
1.
+ * Retaining the dead tuples for this period is sufficient because any
+ * subsequent transaction from the publisher will have a later timestamp.
+ * Therefore, it is acceptable if dead tuples are removed by vacuum and an
+ * update_missing conflict is detected, as the correct resolution for the
+ * last-update-wins strategy in this case is to convert the UPDATE to an INSERT
+ * and apply it anyway.
+ *
+ * The 'remote_wal_pos' will be reset after sending a new request to walsender.
+ */
+static void
+maybe_advance_nonremovable_xid(XLogRecPtr *remote_wal_pos,
+    DeadTupleRetainPhase *phase)

We should cover the key point of retaining dead tuples which is to
avoid converting updates to inserts (considering the conflict as
update_missing) in the comments above and also in the commit message.

2. In maybe_advance_nonremovable_xid() all three phases are handled by
different if blocks but as per my understanding the phase value will
be unique in one call to the function. So, shouldn't it be handled
with else if?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Use more CppAsString2() in pg_amcheck.c