On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:39 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Design Overview
> > ------------------------
> > To safely parallelize non-streaming transactions, we must ensure that
> > transaction dependencies are respected to avoid failures and
> > deadlocks. Consider the following scenarios to understand it better:
> > (a) Transaction failures: Say, if we insert a row in the first
> > transaction and update it in the second transaction on the publisher,
> > then allowing the subscriber to apply both in parallel can lead to
> > failure in the update; (b) Deadlocks - allowing transactions that
> > update the same set of rows in a table in the opposite order in
> > parallel can lead to deadlocks.
> >
>
> Build-in subsystem for transaction dependency tracking would be highly
> beneficial for physical replication speedup projects like[0]
>
I am not sure if that is directly applicable because this work
proposes to track dependencies based on logical WAL contents. However,
if you can point me to README on the overall design of the work you
are pointing to then I can check it once.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
