| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, konstantin knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |
| Date: | 2018-06-21 10:31:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20180621103120.GI1679@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:18:44PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 20/06/18 09:59, Arseny Sher wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>>> It seems to me that we still want to have the slot forwarding finish in
>>> this case even if this is interrupted. Petr, isn't that the intention
>>> here?
>
> Well, it seems wasteful to just exit there if we already finished all
> the requested work, also gives some consistency with the coding of
> get/peek_changes. Not very important for the functionality either way.
I like the concept of consistency.
Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
gathered here? Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
of words and comments you think is most adapted as the primary author of
the feature.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-06-21 11:09:09 | Re: PATCH: backtraces for error messages |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-06-21 10:28:01 | Re: Sample values for pg_stat_statements |