Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?
Date: 2025-08-11 06:58:41
Message-ID: CAGECzQRtiMDGtATzWcn6D53ne9EZ8VCvUCxC_=TtvFdkz8b7aA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:50, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I think any of the other options would be
> better. There's no guarantee that more data will ever arrive, the
> connection might be used just to wait for the notification.

Yeah, I think that's the important thing to realize here. The "try
again later" only makes sense if we need more data to try again. If we
don't then we now start waiting on data that might never come.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2025-08-11 07:39:14 Re: New commitfest app release on August 19th
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-08-11 06:44:01 Re: [Patch] add new parameter to pg_replication_origin_session_setup