Re: is pg_log_standby_snapshot() really needed?
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: is pg_log_standby_snapshot() really needed? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6ad6638f-1eb1-380b-c5e1-4e0472e8bf60@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | is pg_log_standby_snapshot() really needed? (Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>) |
Ответы |
Re: is pg_log_standby_snapshot() really needed?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 6/7/23 7:32 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > Hi, > > I'm testing the ability to have a logical replica subscribed from a standby. > > Of course, I'm doing this in a laboratory with no activity so > everything get stuck after creating the subscription (the main slot). > This is clearly because every time it will create a temp slot for copy > a table it needs the running xacts from the primary. > > Now, I was solving this by executing CHECKPOINT on the primary, and > also noted that pg_switch_wal() works too. After that, I read about > pg_log_standby_snapshot(). > > So, I wonder if that function is really needed because as I said I > solved it with already existing functionality. Or if it is really > needed maybe it is a bug that a CHECKPOINT and pg_switch_wal() have > the same effect? > Even if CHECKPOINT and pg_switch_wal() do produce the same effect, I think they are expensive (as compare to pg_log_standby_snapshot() which does nothing but emit a xl_running_xacts). For this reason, I think pg_log_standby_snapshot() is worth to have/keep. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: