Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> At Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:41:46 -0700, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
>> I'm favoring (1). Other preferences?

> Starting from the current shape, I think 1 is preferable, since that
> waiting logic is no longer shared between logical and physical
> replications. But I'm not sure I like calling WalSndWaitForWal()
> (maybe with previous location + 1?), because the function seems to do
> too-much.

I'm far from an expert on this code, but it does look like there's
a lot of stuff in WalSndWaitForWal that is specific to logical rep,
so I'm not sure that (1) is workable. At the very least there'd
have to be a bunch more conditionals in that function than there are
now. In the end, a separate copy for physical rep might be better.

(BTW, I think this code is in desperate need of a renaming
campaign to make it clearer which functions are for logical rep,
physical rep, or both.)

regards, tom lane