| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
| Date: | 2016-12-02 01:55:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3+npS2yPqp2uht5kCSVaVOUAMpbaw3N9Oo6+4-Tpqcag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/30/16 8:06 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 30/11/16 22:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I have taken the libpqwalreceiver refactoring patch and split it into
>>> two: one for the latch change, one for the API change. I have done some
>>> mild editing.
>>>
>>> These two patches are now ready to commit in my mind.
>
>> Hi, looks good to me, do you plan to commit this soon or would you
>> rather me to resubmit the patches rebased on top of this (and including
>> this) first?
>
> committed those two
Commit 597a87ccc9a6fa8af7f3cf280b1e24e41807d555 left some comments
behind that referred to the select() that it removed. Maybe rewrite
like in the attached?
I wonder if it would be worth creating and reusing a WaitEventSet here.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| comments.patch | application/octet-stream | 957 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-02 01:55:50 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-02 01:52:29 | Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless |