From: Kartyshov Ivan <i.kartyshov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 12:20:28 +0300
Message-ID: <2c7ed9b13cf776c918234153d95a1b3c@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdt=Edtk9B3owg4of6v5Y=vi6=5R9ZHM84KPOdR6mER0wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPpHfdtiGgn0iS1KbW2HTam-1+oK+vhXZDAcnX9hKaA7Oe=F-A@mail.gmail.com>
<22f122-655b3e80-3-688b3700@97587957>
<CAPpHfdt=Edtk9B3owg4of6v5Y=vi6=5R9ZHM84KPOdR6mER0wg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2023-11-27 03:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I've retried my case with v6 and it doesn't fail anymore. But I
> wonder how safe it is to reset xmin within the user-visible function?
> We have no guarantee that the function is not called inside the
> complex query. Then how will the rest of the query work with xmin
> reset? Separate utility statement still looks like more safe option
> for me.
As you mentioned, we can`t guarantee that the function is not called
inside the complex query, but we can return the xmin after waiting.
But you are right and separate utility statement still looks more safe.
So I want to bring up the discussion on separate utility statement
again.
--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres Professional: www.postgrespro.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: i.kartyshov@postgrespro.ru, aekorotkov@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed
In-Reply-To: <2c7ed9b13cf776c918234153d95a1b3c@postgrespro.ru>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox