On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-23 07:26:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts repla
On 24 August 2016 at 00:50, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-23 07:26:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> > [an explanation of SSI anomalies]
>
I've generally a bit of difficulty to see this as a significant problem
> for logical rep,
On 2016-08-23 07:26:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> >> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
> >> commit order will produce incorrect results?
> >
> > ht
On 24 August 2016 at 00:26, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> >>> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>>
> Could you p
On 23/08/16 15:59, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2016-08-22 16:29:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
So, I wish I could give you some better advice on this topic, but
sadly I am not an expert in this area. However, it seems to me that
this is just one f
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>
Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
commit
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
>>> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
>>> commit order will produce incorrect results?
>>
>> https://wiki.postgre
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-08-22 16:29:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, I wish I could give you some better advice on this topic, but
>> sadly I am not an expert in this area. However, it seems to me that
>> this is just one facet of a much more general pro
On 23 Aug 2016 20:10, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> > On 23 Aug 2016 05:43, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >>
> >>> it seems to me that
> >>> this is just one facet of a much more general pr
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Could you provide an example of a case where xacts replayed in
>> commit order will produce incorrect results?
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SSI#Deposit_Report
>
> ... where T3
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016 05:43, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> it seems to me that
>>> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
>>> transactions T1 and T2, the order of rep
On 23 Aug 2016 05:43, "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that
> > this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
> > transactions T1 and T2, the order of replay must match the order of
> > commit unless you can pr
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> it seems to me that
> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
> transactions T1 and T2, the order of replay must match the order of
> commit unless you can prove that there are no dependencies between
> them. I don't
On 2016-08-22 16:29:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, I wish I could give you some better advice on this topic, but
> sadly I am not an expert in this area. However, it seems to me that
> this is just one facet of a much more general problem: given two
> transactions T1 and T2, the order of repla
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> If the sequence is created in the current xact (i.e. uncommitted) we have to
> add the sequence updates to that xact to be replayed only if it commits. The
> sequence is visible only to the toplevel xact that created the sequence so
> advance
On 22 August 2016 at 11:13, Craig Ringer wrote:
> So yeah. I think extending SeqTableData and xl_seq_rec with xid is the way
> to go. Objections?
>
Prototyping this shows that re-using SeqTableData to store the creator xid
won't work out. We can't just store the toplevel xid because TRUNCATE .
Hi all
My earlier efforts at logical decoding of sequence advances were too
simplistic[1], falling afoul of issues with sequences being both
transactional and not transactional depending on whether the sequence is
created in the current xact or not.
TL;DR of solution:
* extend SeqTableData and x
18 matches
Mail list logo
