From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Implement waiting for given lsn at transaction start |
Date: | 2020-04-07 23:33:56 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdu6CJKoryr68v_qqzE8MgO3bhsm2=VSgaw63wNJ=tpxnw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Implement waiting for given lsn at transaction start
> > This commit adds following optional clause to BEGIN and START TRANSACTION
> > commands.
> > WAIT FOR LSN lsn [ TIMEOUT timeout ]
>
> This seems like a really carelessly chosen syntax --- *three* new
> keywords, when you probably didn't need any. Are you not aware that
> there is distributed overhead in the grammar for every keyword?
I had theoretical knowledge about that, but I didn't manage to apply it.
> Plus, each new keyword carries the risk of breaking existing
> applications, since it no longer works as an alias-not-preceded-by-AS.
I wasn't aware about this. This is a good point, which I will remember.
> I have no particular opinion on the value of the feature, but I wish
> a different syntax had been chosen.
Sure, we'll prepare an update for syntax soon.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2020-04-08 00:04:35 | Re: pgsql: Implement waiting for given lsn at transaction start |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-04-07 23:32:04 | Re: pgsql: Implement waiting for given lsn at transaction start |