Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANbhV-H-zYcv8d80Lcnd6epJikFeQNOt21s+a-EtgVJvB6Bq3A@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 12:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? Surelyits locking > > 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. OK, good. > > The use of "[user]" isn't fully explained, so it might not be clear that this applies to both Postgres catalog tablesand any 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. Makes sense. Thanks -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: