| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com |
| Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
| Subject: | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
| Date: | 2023-02-13 01:56:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20230213.105651.2039856423945624452.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Fri, 10 Feb 2023 12:40:43 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> Dear Amit,
>
> > Can't we have this option just as a bool (like shutdown_immediate)?
> > Why do we want to keep multiple modes?
>
> Of course we can use boolean instead, but current style is motivated by the post[1].
> This allows to add another option in future, whereas I do not have idea now.
>
> I want to ask other reviewers which one is better...
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230208.112717.1140830361804418505.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
IMHO I vaguely don't like that we lose a means to specify the default
behavior here. And I'm not sure we definitely don't need other than
flush and immedaite for both physical and logical replication. If it's
not the case, I don't object to make it a Boolean.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-13 02:27:58 | Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-13 01:26:19 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |