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 | CAA4eK1K+Zisk0TmcWnc6-zZWZXDLBkpaZsux+Zkj_JsGe-Ok5Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep ("osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 9:18 AM osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:33 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> > > To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> > > Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Amit Kapila > > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>; Markus Wanner > > <markus.wanner@enterprisedb.com> > > Subject: Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep > > > > Hi. > > > > The attached PG docs patch about catalog deadlocks was previously > > implemented in another thread [1], but it seems more relevant to this one. > > > > PSA. > Thank you for providing the patch. > I have updated your patch to include some other viewpoints. > I suggest creating a synchronous replication part of the patch for back-branches as well. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: