Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikhil Sontakke
Subject Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Date
Msg-id CAMGcDxfxEodz8+THwaXtjpW5WuBpeYp1t-UT9Wa-NfNuWaBVGA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
List pgsql-hackers
>> Note that this patch does not contain the HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum
>> changes. I believe we need changes to HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum given
>> than logical decoding changes the assumption that catalog tuples
>> belonging to a transaction which never committed can be reclaimed
>> immediately. With 2PC logical decoding or streaming logical decoding,
>> we can always have a split time window in which the ongoing decode
>> cycle needs those tuples. The solution is that even for aborted
>> transactions, we do not return HEAPTUPLE_DEAD if the transaction id is
>> newer than the OldestXmin (same logic we use for deleted tuples of
>> committed transactions). We can do this only for catalog table rows
>> (both system and user defined) to limit the scope of impact. In any
>> case, this needs to be a separate patch along with a separate
>> discussion thread.
>
> Are you working on that as well?

Sure, I was planning to work on that after getting the documentation
for this patch out of the way.

Regards,
Nikhils
-- 
 Nikhil Sontakke                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL/Postgres-XL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Bitmap table scan cost per page formula
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question aboutmeaning of information for explain.depesz.com