| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_logical_emit_message() misses a XLogFlush() |
| Date: | 2023-08-15 21:58:56 |
| Message-ID: | ZNv1IEHhGxrUTtwI@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:37:32AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Shouldn't the flush be done only for non-transactional messages? The
> transactional case will be flushed by regular commit flush.
Indeed, that would be better. I am sending an updated patch.
I'd like to backpatch that, would there be any objections to that?
This may depend on how much logical solutions depend on this routine.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| logirep-message-flush-2.patch | text/x-diff | 946 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema | 2023-08-15 22:14:21 | Would it be possible to backpatch Close support in libpq (28b5726) to PG16? |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2023-08-15 21:49:47 | Logging of matching pg_hba.conf entry during auth skips trust auth, potential security issue |