| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
| Date: | 2017-06-06 02:28:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20170606022802.cjfbfct5s7mbh54t@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-06-05 15:30:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + * This will trigger walsenders to send the remaining WAL, prevent them from
> + * accepting further commands. After that they'll wait till the last WAL is
> + * written.
> s/prevent/preventing/?
> I would rephrase the last sentence a bit:
> "After that each WAL sender will wait until the end-of-checkpoint
> record has been flushed on the receiver side."
I didn't like your proposed phrasing much, but I aggree that what I had
wasn't good either. Tried to improve it.
Thanks for the review.
I pushed this series, this should resolve the issue in this thread
entirely, and should fix a good chunk of the issues in the 'walsender
and parallelism' thread.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-06 02:31:00 | Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-06 02:19:34 | inconsistent application_name use in logical workers |