From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay |
Date: | 2019-07-08 08:05:35 |
Message-ID: | 20190708080535.GG2709@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:56:25PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:34 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2019-Jan-30, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > I wonder if it can be considered as acceptable solution of the problem or
> > > there can be some better approach?
> >
> > I didn't find one.
>
> It sounds like you are in agreement that there is a problem and this
> is the best solution. I didn't look at these patches, I'm just asking
> with my Commitfest manager hat on: did I understand correctly, does
> this need a TAP test, possibly the one Alvaro posted, and if so, could
> we please have a fresh patch that includes the test, so we can see it
> passing the test in CI?
Please note that I have not looked at that stuff in details, but I
find the patch proposed kind of ugly with the scan of the last segment
using a WAL reader to find out what is the last LSN and react on
that.. This does not feel right.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-08 08:07:19 | Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2019-07-08 08:04:38 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |