| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 15:55:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20160406155522.vdnfssq3p7jltxo5@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-06 16:49:17 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Perhaps easy to solve, but how do we test it is solved?
Maybe something like
-- drain
pg_logical_slot_get_changes(...);
-- generate message in different database, to ensure it's not processed
-- in this database
\c template1
SELECT pg_logical_emit_message(...);
\c postgres
-- check
pg_logical_slot_get_changes(..);
It's a bit ugly to hardcode database names :/
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-06 16:05:57 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-06 15:49:17 | Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages |