Skip to content

Conversation

laurenceisla
Copy link
Member

@laurenceisla laurenceisla commented Jul 23, 2025

WIP

Should close #3673.

@laurenceisla laurenceisla force-pushed the fix/transaction-no-retry branch 3 times, most recently from 1afa5fb to 665f55c Compare August 13, 2025 01:48
@steve-chavez
Copy link
Member

Should we vendor hasql-notifications for now since there's no response for diogob/hasql-notifications#30 ?

I remember we did this before too. It's a single file so no major maintenance problem there IMO.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Member

We should not vendor it, for two reasons:

  • First of all, we haven't even done our own work, yet. We can't update to hasql 1.8 or 1.9 before the static build is sorted out - and it currently doesn't look like there will be progress soon. The upstream Nixpkgs PR that Build static executable for linux aarch64 (w/ TH) #4193 depends on is likely not going to get merged - and currently Nixpkgs is not even able to build pkgsStatic.libpq anmyore. This only worked by accident. Thus, upgrading to GHC 9.6 and then hasql is quite far out of reach for us right now.
  • 3 weeks without reaction is not "no reaction", imho. Especially when there has been no additional ping in the PR, yet, etc.

@laurenceisla laurenceisla force-pushed the fix/transaction-no-retry branch 2 times, most recently from 510cafa to ff133bf Compare August 13, 2025 13:27
@laurenceisla laurenceisla force-pushed the fix/transaction-no-retry branch from ff133bf to 23426d2 Compare August 14, 2025 19:28
@laurenceisla
Copy link
Member Author

laurenceisla commented Aug 14, 2025

3 weeks without reaction is not "no reaction", imho. Especially when there has been no additional ping in the PR, yet, etc.

Thanks for the ping suggestion (I should've done this weeks ago). Changes are now merged and released upstream!

First of all, we haven't even done our own work, yet. We can't update to hasql 1.8 or 1.9 before the static build is sorted out - and it currently doesn't look like there will be progress soon.

OK, so this would be the only blocker for this PR for now then. Also some stack shenanigans, but will fix after this is sorted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Surprising infinite retrying of SQL statement on a replica causes replication lag
3 participants