On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 11:22 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@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
