Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0d8fe359-e6aa-4997-7e61-19d3dba360e0@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys ("Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2/25/22 10:34 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/28/21 11:07 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2021-10-28 16:24:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:56 AM Drouvot, Bertrand >>> <bdrouvot@amazon.com> wrote: >>>> So you have in mind to check for XLogLogicalInfoActive() first, and >>>> if true, then open the relation and call >>>> RelationIsAccessibleInLogicalDecoding()? >>> I think 0001 is utterly unacceptable. We cannot add calls to >>> table_open() in low-level functions like this. Suppose for example >>> that _bt_getbuf() calls _bt_log_reuse_page() which with 0001 applied >>> would call get_rel_logical_catalog(). _bt_getbuf() will have acquired >>> a buffer lock on the page. The idea that it's safe to call >>> table_open() while holding a buffer lock cannot be taken seriously. >> Yes - that's pretty clearly a deadlock hazard. It shouldn't too hard >> to fix, I >> think. Possibly a bit more verbose than nice, but... >> >> Alternatively we could propagate the information whether a relcache >> entry is >> for a catalog from the table to the index. Then we'd not need to >> change the >> btree code to pass the table down. > > +1 for the idea of propagating to the index. If that sounds good to > you too, I can try to have a look at it. > > Thanks Robert and Andres for the feedbacks you have done on the > various sub-patches. > > I've now in mind to work sub patch by sub patch (starting with 0001 > then) and move to the next one once we agree that the current one is > "ready". > > I think that could help us to get this new feature moving forward more > "easily", what do you think? > > Thanks > > Bertrand > I'm going to re-create a CF entry for it, as: - It seems there is a clear interest for the feature (given the time already spend on it and the number of people that worked on) - I've in mind to resume working on it - It would give more visibility in case others want to jump in Hope that makes sense, Thanks, Bertrand
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: