On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 2:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I agree with this theory. Can we reflect this in comments so that in
> > > the future we know why we didn't pursue this direction?
> >
> > I might be missing something here, but for streaming, transaction
> > users can decide whether they wants to skip or not only once we start
> > applying no? I mean only once we start applying the changes we can
> > get some errors and by that time we must be having all the changes for
> > the transaction.
> >
>
> That is right and as per my understanding, the patch is trying to
> accomplish the same.
>
> > So I do not understand the point we are trying to
> > discuss here?
> >
>
> The point is that whether we can skip the changes while streaming
> itself like when we get the changes and write to a stream file. Now,
> it is possible that streams from multiple transactions can be
> interleaved and users can change the skip_xid in between. It is not
> that we can't handle this but that would require a more complex design
> and it doesn't seem worth it because we can anyway skip the changes
> while applying as you mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Actually, I was trying to understand the use case for skipping while
streaming. Actually, during streaming we are not doing any database
operation that means this will not generate any error. So IIUC, there
is no use case for skipping while streaming itself? Is there any use
case which I am not aware of?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
