| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
| Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
| Date: | 2023-02-15 06:20:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20230215.152059.901518664243266662.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 17:13:43 -0800, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in
> On 2023-02-14 10:05:40 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > What do you think about the need for explicitly specifying the
> > default? I'm fine with specifying the default using a single word,
> > such as WAIT_FOR_REMOTE_FLUSH.
>
> We obviously shouldn't force the option to be present. Why would we want to
> break existing clients unnecessarily? Without it the behaviour should be
> unchanged from today's.
I didn't suggest making the option mandatory. I just suggested
providing a way to specify the default value explicitly, like in the
recent commit 746915c686.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2023-02-15 06:30:11 | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-02-15 05:57:04 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |