Dear All,
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 17:16 MSK, Давыдов Виталий
wrote:
Hi Amit, Ajin, All
Thank you for the patch and the responses. I apologize for my delayed answer
due to some curcumstances.
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 14:18 MSK, Amit Kapila
wrote:
Vitaly, does the minimal solution
Hi Amit, Ajin, All
Thank you for the patch and the responses. I apologize for my delayed answer
due to some curcumstances.
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 14:18 MSK, Amit Kapila
wrote:
Vitaly, does the minimal solution provided by the proposed patch (Allow to
alter two_phase option of a
Hi Heikki,
Thank you for the reply.
On Tuesday, March 05, 2024 12:05 MSK, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
In a nutshell, this changes PREPARE TRANSACTION so that if
synchronous_commit is 'off', the PREPARE TRANSACTION is not fsync'd to
disk. So if you crash after the PREPARE TRANSACTION has
Dear All,
Consider, please, my patch for async commit for twophase transactions. It can
be applicable when catchup performance is not enought with publication
parameter twophase = on.
The key changes are:
* Use XLogSetAsyncXactLSN instead of XLogFlush as it is for usual
transactions. * In
I store 2pc state in
the local memory in my patch.
It would be good if you could link those threads.Sure, I will find and add some
links to the discussions from past.
Thank you!
With best regards,
Vitaly
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:49 PM Давыдов Виталий
wrote:
>
> Thank you for your in
Hi Amit,
Thank you for your interest in the discussion!
On Monday, February 26, 2024 16:24 MSK, Amit Kapila
wrote:
I think the reason is probably that when the WAL record for prepared is already
flushed then what will be the idea of async commit here?I think, the idea of
async commit
Hi Amit,
Amit Kapila wrote:
I don't see we do anything specific for 2PC transactions to make them behave
differently than regular transactions with respect to synchronous_commit
setting. What makes you think so? Can you pin point the code you are referring
to?Yes, sure. The function
Hi Ajin,
Thank you for your feedback. Could you please try to increase the number of
clients (-c pgbench option) up to 20 or more? It seems, I forgot to specify it.
With best regards,
Vitaly Davydov On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:29 AM Давыдов Виталий
wrote:
Dear All,
I'd like to present
Dear All,
I'd like to present and talk about a problem when 2PC transactions are applied
quite slowly on a replica during logical replication. There is a master and a
replica with established logical replication from the master to the replica
with twophase = true. With some load level on the
Hi Aleksander,
Well even assuming this patch will make it to the upstream some day,
which I seriously doubt, it will take somewhere between 2 and 5 years.
Personally I would recommend reconsidering this design.
I understand what you are saying. I have no plans to create a patch for this
issue. I
Hi Aleksander,
I sort of suspect that you are working on a very specific extension
and/or feature for PG fork. Any chance you could give us more details
about the case?I'm trying to adapt a multimaster solution to some changes in
pg16. We replicate temp table DDL due to some reasons.
Hi Aleksander,
Thank you for your answers. It seems, local buffers are used for temporary
relations unconditionally. In this case, we may check either relpersistence or
backend id, or both of them.
I didn't do a deep investigation of the code in this particular aspect but that
could be a fair
Dear Hackers,
I would like to clarify, what the correct way is to determine that a given
relation is using local buffers. Local buffers, as far as I know, are used for
temporary tables in backends. There are two functions/macros (bufmgr.c):
SmgrIsTemp, RelationUsesLocalBuffers. The first
13 matches
Mail list logo
