RE: Logical Replication vs. 2PC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: Logical Replication vs. 2PC
Date
Msg-id OS0PR01MB6113BE506D2E83E9B3208069FB639@OS0PR01MB6113.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical Replication vs. 2PC  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have enhanced the patch for 2PC implementation on the
>subscriber-side as per the solution discussed here [1].

FYI.
I did the confirmation for the solution of unique GID problem raised at [1].
This problem in V61-patches at [2] is fixed in the latest V66-patches at [3].

B.T.W. NG log at V61-patches is attached, please take it as your reference.
       Test step is just the same as Amit said at [1].

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1+opiV4aFTmWWUF9h_32=HfPOW9vZASHarT0UA5oBrtGw@mail.gmail.com
[2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPv3X7YH_nDEjH1ZJf5U6M6DHHtEjevu7PY5Dv5071jQ4A%40mail.gmail.com
[3] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JPEoYAkggmLqbdD%2BcF%3DkWNpLkZb_wJ8eqj0QD2AjBTBA%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Tang


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions