On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 11:12 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? >
Oh, do you mean maintain different historic snapshots and then switch based on the change we are processing? I guess the other thing we need to consider is the order of processing the changes if we maintain separate queues that need to be processed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
