On 17 March 2017 at 23:59, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But that lock could need to be held for an unbounded period of time - > as long as decoding takes to complete - which seems pretty > undesirable. Yeah. We could use a recovery-conflict like mechanism to signal the decoding session that someone wants to abort the xact, but it gets messy. > Worse still, the same problem will arise if you > eventually want to start decoding ordinary, non-2PC transactions that > haven't committed yet, which I think is something we definitely want > to do eventually; the current handling of bulk loads or bulk updates > leads to significant latency. Yeah. If it weren't for that, I'd probably still just pursue locking. But you're right that we'll have to solve this sooner or later. I'll admit I hoped for later. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
