Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 7:50 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I went through this patch another time, and made some minor
> adjustments. Now it looks good, I'm going to push it if no
> objections.
>

I have a question related to usability, if the regular reads (say a
Select statement or reads via function/procedure) need a similar
guarantee to see the changes on standby then do they also always need
to first do something like "BEGIN AFTER '0/3F0FF791' WITHIN 1000;"? Or
in other words, shouldn't we think of something for implicit
transactions?

In general, it seems this patch has been stuck for a long time on the
decision to choose an appropriate UI (syntax), and we thought of
moving it further so that the other parts of the patch can be
reviewed/discussed. So, I feel before pushing this we should see
comments from a few (at least two) other senior members who earlier
shared their opinion on the syntax. I know we don't have much time
left but OTOH pushing such a change (where we didn't have a consensus
on syntax) without much discussion at this point of time could lead to
discussions after commit.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.