Re: Problem with logical replication

From: Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with logical replication
Date: 2020-05-15 11:48:53
Message-ID: CAH503wCfFxUS_VZhFEAfXvKJNgkYVOexfsDFiYDyLQTU3dOC4g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 02:47, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

>
> Agreed. I don't think either that we need to update this comment. I
> was playing with this patch and what you have here looks fine by me.
> Two nits: the extra parenthesis in the assert are not necessary, and
> the indentation had some diffs. Tom has just reindented the whole
> tree, so let's keep things clean.
>
>
LGTM.

--
Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2020-05-15 11:50:55 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-05-15 11:18:58 Re: pg13: xlogreader API adjust