| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_replication_origin_drop API potential race condition |
| Date: | 2021-02-09 11:11:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LSib5yTJsa6S_7B7Z-Fsp3wZoFjs+t-4QuBK86dxyYhA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Feb-09, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Now, we can do this optimization if we want but I am not sure if
> > origin_drop would be a frequent enough operation that we add such an
> > optimization. For now, I have added a note in the comments so that if
> > we find any such use case we can implement such optimization in the
> > future. What do you think?
>
> By all means let's get the bug fixed.
>
I am planning to push this in HEAD only as there is no user reported
problem and this is actually more about giving correct information to
the user rather than some misleading message. Do you see any need to
back-patch this change?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-02-09 11:19:28 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-02-09 10:51:22 | Re: libpq debug log |