Re: Any objections to implementing LogicalDecodeMessageCB for pgoutput?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Any objections to implementing LogicalDecodeMessageCB for pgoutput?
Date: 2020-09-24 04:22:30
Message-ID: 20200924042230.GK28585@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:18:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> A test verifying that a non-transactional message in later aborted
> transaction is handled correctly would be good.

On top of that, the patch needs a rebase as it visibly fails to apply,
per the CF bot.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-09-24 04:26:32 Re: The ultimate extension hook.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-09-24 04:20:40 Re: PATCH: Attempt to make dbsize a bit more consistent