| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Date: | 2023-02-01 04:34:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KQJfUY1i37ircTZM4fyoKgSDmnUjbDBjRf+q90b6ADcg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:24 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:03 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have slightly adjusted one of
> > > > the comments and ran pgindent. See attached. As mentioned in the
> > > > commit message, we shouldn't backpatch this as this requires a new
> > > > callback and moreover, users can increase the wal_sender_timeout and
> > > > wal_receiver_timeout to avoid this problem. What do you think?
> > >
> > > The callback and the implementation is all in core. What's the risk
> > > you see in backpatching it?
> > >
> >
> > Because we are changing the exposed structure and which can break
> > existing extensions using it.
>
> Is that because we are adding the new member in the middle of the
> structure?
>
Not only that but this changes the size of the structure and we want
to avoid that as well in stable branches. See email [1] (you can't
change the struct size either ...). As per my understanding, our usual
practice is to not change the exposed structure's size/definition in
stable branches.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2358496.1649168259%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2023-02-01 04:37:02 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-02-01 04:30:13 | Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit" |