Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, 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
Subject: Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
Date: 2023-02-14 01:13:43
Message-ID: 20230214011343.ddnx35jrhl4mm7lm@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-02-14 10:05:40 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> 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.

We obviously shouldn't force the option to be present. Why would we want to
break existing clients unnecessarily? Without it the behaviour should be
unchanged from today's.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2023-02-14 01:42:34 Re: Fix GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL test scenario in 003_check_guc.pl
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-02-14 01:11:29 Re: Move defaults toward ICU in 16?