On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 11:22 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Some time ago I floated the idea of maybe "queuing" the sequence changes
> and only replay them on the next commit, somehow. But we did ran into
> problems with which snapshot to use, that I didn't know how to solve.
> Maybe we should try again. The idea is we'd queue the non-transactional
> changes somewhere (can't be in the transaction, because we must keep
> them even if it aborts), and then "inject" them into the next commit.
> That'd mean we wouldn't do the separate start/abort for each change.
Why can't we use the same concept of
SnapBuildDistributeNewCatalogSnapshot(), I mean we keep queuing the
non-transactional changes (have some base snapshot before the first
change), and whenever there is any catalog change, queue new snapshot
change also in the queue of the non-transactional sequence change so
that while sending it to downstream whenever it is necessary we will
change the historic snapshot?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
