Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reject WAIT FOR earlier in transaction-snapshot mode
Date: 2026-09-17 21:28:30
Message-ID: CAN12+YKt=q_cG3Y6rU5EVxMb1mENLid-FfaJhHPc35=stRDHHg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Agreed. v7 attached: three paragraphs collapsed into one, close to your
> wording. I kept three bits from v6:

Only nit I have is:

which <literal>standby_replay</literal> waits for and the
+ other standby modes ultimately depend on.

The "ultimately depends on" is not very clear. I would change it to:

"which <literal>standby_replay</literal> waits for, and could also
delay waits in
the other standby modes."

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-09-17 22:22:34 Re: pgsql: Revert online data checksum transitions
Previous Message Álvaro Herrera 2026-09-17 21:08:22 Re: Routed ON CONFLICT inserts broken by partition-local deferrable unique constraints in 19 and master