| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(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: | 2023-02-14 01:05:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20230214.100540.68993368640884767.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:27:01 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:26 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 we can think of any use case that requires its extension then it
> makes sense to make it a non-boolean option but otherwise, let's keep
> things simple by having a boolean option.
What do you think about the need for explicitly specifying the
default? I'm fine with specifying the default using a single word,
such as WAIT_FOR_REMOTE_FLUSH.
> > 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 | Andres Freund | 2023-02-14 01:10:56 | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-02-14 01:02:37 | Re: recovery modules |