Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay
Date: 2019-11-28 04:11:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:48:01PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Attached pleased find rebased version of the patch with
> "wal_receiver_start_condition" GUC added (preserving by default original
> behavior).

Konstantin, please be careful with the patch entry in the CF app.
This was marked as waiting on author, but that does not reflect the
reality as you have sent a new patch, so I have moved the patch to
next CF instead, with "Needs review" as status.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-28 04:14:14 Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-28 04:05:33 Re: To Suggest a "DROP INCREMENTAL MATERIALIZED VIEW" in psql, but the syntax error when you run.