| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, euler(at)eulerto(dot)com, m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Date: | 2023-01-25 00:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20230125.091151.1392854690228706136.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 11:45:36 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> Personally, I would prefer the above LOGs to be in reverse order as it
> doesn't make much sense to me to first say that we are skipping
> changes and then say the transaction is delayed. What do you think?
In the first place, I misunderstood maybe_start_skipping_changes(),
which doesn't actually skip changes. So... sorry for the noise.
For the record, I agree that the current order is right.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-25 00:20:39 | Re: 011_crash_recovery.pl intermittently fails |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-25 00:08:17 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |