Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JeOcLsLvr-Bf0pV6_jYgGHYF7wobxDpNKZTHNhWiG6kQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 8:41 AM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com > <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Pushed! > [Responding to Simon's comments] > If LOCK and TRUNCATE is advised against on all user catalog tables, why would CLUSTER only apply to pg_class? Surely itslocking > level is the same as LOCK? > Cluster will also apply to all user catalog tables. I think we can extend it slightly as we have mentioned for Lock. > The use of "[user]" isn't fully explained, so it might not be clear that this applies to both Postgres catalog tables andany user tables > that have been nominated as catalogs. Probably worth linking to the "Capabilities" section to explain. > Sounds reasonable. > It would be worth coalescing the following sections into a single page, since they are just a few lines each: > Streaming Replication Protocol Interface > Logical Decoding SQL Interface > System Catalogs Related to Logical Decoding > I think this is worth considering but we might want to discuss this as a separate change/patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: