Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions

Hi,

On 2018-03-30 00:23:00 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/29/2018 11:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > FWIW, for me that's ground to not accept the feature. Burdening output
> > plugins with this will make their development painful (because they'll
> > have to adapt regularly) and correctness doubful (there's nothing
> > checking for the lock being skipped).  Another way needs to be found.
> > 
> 
> The lack of docs/comments, or the fact that the decoding plugins would
> need to do some lock/unlock operation?

The latter.


> I agree with the former, of course - docs are a must. I disagree with
> the latter, though - there have been about no proposals how to do it
> without the locking. If there are, I'd like to hear about it.

I don't care. Either another solution needs to be found, or the locking
needs to be automatically performed when necessary.

Greetings,

Andres Freund