On 12 October 2017 at 16:09, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
>
> Is the CREATE TABLE and INSERT done in the same transaction?
>
> No. Table was create in separate transaction.
> Moreover the same effect will take place if table is create before start of
> replication.
> The problem in this case seem
On 12.10.2017 04:23, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 12 October 2017 at 00:57, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
The reason of such behavior is obvious: wal sender has to decode huge
transaction generate by insert although it has no relation to this
publication.
It does. Though I wouldn't expect anywhere n
On 12 October 2017 at 00:57, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> The reason of such behavior is obvious: wal sender has to decode huge
> transaction generate by insert although it has no relation to this
> publication.
It does. Though I wouldn't expect anywhere near the kind of drop you
report, and hav
On 11.10.2017 10:07, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 9 October 2017 at 15:37, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
Thank you for explanations.
On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions,
test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are /
Hi,
On 2017-10-09 10:37:01 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> So we have implement sharding - splitting data between several remote tables
> using pg_pathman and postgres_fdw.
> It means that insert or update of parent table cause insert or update of
> some derived partitions which is forwarded
On 9 October 2017 at 15:37, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Thank you for explanations.
>
> On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions,
>> test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are / aren't
>> related to your changes
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> Thank you for explanations.
>
> On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions,
>> test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are / aren't
>> related to your cha
Thank you for explanations.
On 08.10.2017 16:00, Craig Ringer wrote:
I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions,
test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are / aren't
related to your changes.
It will be not so easy to provide some reproducing scenario, becaus
On 8 October 2017 at 03:58, Konstantin Knizhnik
wrote:
> The question was about logical replication mechanism in mainstream version
> of Postgres.
I think it'd be helpful if you provided reproduction instructions,
test programs, etc, making it very clear when things are / aren't
related to your
On 10/07/2017 10:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2017-10-07 22:39:09 +0300, konstantin knizhnik wrote:
In our sharded cluster project we are trying to use logical relication for
providing HA (maintaining redundant shard copies).
Using asynchronous logical replication has not so much sense i
Hi,
On 2017-10-07 22:39:09 +0300, konstantin knizhnik wrote:
> In our sharded cluster project we are trying to use logical relication for
> providing HA (maintaining redundant shard copies).
> Using asynchronous logical replication has not so much sense in context of
> HA. This is why we try to
11 matches
Mail list logo
