| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Date: | 2017-04-14 18:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | 40cfdd58-2940-1558-01e9-a4a80919ed88@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/13/17 06:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached the latest patch. It didn't actually necessary to change
> GetSubscriptionNotReadyRelations. I just changed the logic refreshing
> the sync table state list.
> Please give me feedback.
I think this is a reasonable direction, but do we really need
table_sync_retry_interval separate from wal_retrieve_retry_interval?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-14 19:00:33 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-14 18:54:21 | Re: Logical replication and inheritance |