Re: Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMU==SkHHzS6KDSrNiKU9vk2R4TG73M4FJzA-8Yui34+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
Re: Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
List pgsql-hackers
On 19 January 2017 at 09:37, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Though I haven't look closer to how a modification is splitted
> into WAL records. A tuple cannot be so long. As a simple test, I
> observed rechder->xl_tot_len at the end of XLogRecordAssemble
> inserting an about 400KB not-so-compressable string into a text
> column, but I saw a series of many records with shorter than
> several thousand bytes.

I think the case to check is a commit record with many thousands of
subtransactions. I'm not sure you can fill a whole segment though.


-- 
greg


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] session_replication_role = replica with TRUNCATE
Next
From: Marco Nenciarini
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Logical decoding of TRUNCATE