| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | sirisha chamarthi <sirichamarthi22(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAIT FOR command should do some query jumbling |
| Date: | 2026-08-31 02:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAN12+YL6RV3f4BGJ78uG0kh7bfn==FjHT6aS14uuBEx77O4p+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I can see the lack of normalization for the LSN as a bug, but the
> option patterns in a WITH clause is IMO more debatable. I think that
> we should collect more data from the field before setting down on a
> behavior we may regret. I can partially get behind a normalization of
> the timeout, but I am less clear about the MODE and NO_THROW, as it
> could be useful to split them.
IMO, LSN and timeout are both the minimum we should normalize here.
I am also not sure how tools will use this feature, but what makes timeout
safe IMO is the fact that the "timeout" values across many executions that
collapse into a single entry can be understood by the *_exec_time fields.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2026-08-31 02:59:17 | RE: Logical replication can lose an update after concurrent index invalidation |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-08-31 02:48:38 | Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2 |