Re: Coding in WalSndWaitForWal

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Coding in WalSndWaitForWal
Date: 2019-11-13 07:34:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:27:16AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems to me it'd be better to just remove the "get a more recent
> flush pointer" block - it doesn't seem to currently surve a meaningful
> purpose.

+1. That was actually my suggestion upthread :)

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Surafel Temesgen 2019-11-13 07:38:15 Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-13 07:30:29 Re: [PATCH] use separate PartitionedRelOptions structure to store partitioned table options