Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication

Moin,

On Tue, December 26, 2017 5:26 am, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Moin,
>>
>> On Mon, December 25, 2017 7:26 pm, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Petr Jelinek
>>> <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/17 22:06, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> After investigation, I found out that my previous patch was wrong
>>>>> direction. I should have changed XLogSendLogical() so that we can
>>>>> check the read LSN and set WalSndCaughtUp = true even after read a
>>>>> record without wait. Attached updated patch passed 'make
>>>>> check-world'.
>>>>> Please review it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This version looks good to me and seems to be in line with what we do
>>>> in
>>>> physical replication.
>>>>
>>>> Marking as ready for committer.
>>
>> (Sorry Masahiko, you'll get this twice, as fumbled the reply button.)
>>
>> I have not verifed that comment and/or code are correct, just a grammar
>> fix:
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If we've sent a record is at or beyond the flushed
>> point, then
>> + * we're caught up.
>>
>> That should read more like this:
>>
>> "If we've sent a record that is at or beyond the flushed point, we have
>> caught up."
>>
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
> Actually, that comment is inspired by the comment just below comment.
> ISTM it's better to fix both if grammar of them is not appropriate.

Oh yes. Your attached version reads fine to me.

All the best,

Tels