From: | Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Anton Kirilov <antonvkirilov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq |
Date: | 2023-04-28 08:08:15 |
Message-ID: | 2612cb81-2a8b-be11-6f77-97801ea6a3ad@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 01:06:27PM +0200, Denis Laxalde wrote:
>> Thank you; this V2 looks good to me.
>> Marking as ready for committer.
>
> Please note that we are in a stabilization period for v16 and that the
> first commit fest of v17 should start in July, so it will perhaps take
> some time before this is looked at by a committer.
Yes, I am aware; totally fine by me.
> Speaking of which, what was the performance impact of your application
> once PQflush() was moved out of the pipeline sync? Just asking for
> curiosity..
I have no metrics for that; but maybe Anton has some?
(In Psycopg, we generally do not expect users to handle the sync
operation themselves, it's done under the hood; and I only found one
situation where the flush could be avoided, but that's largely because
our design, there can be more in general I think.)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2023-04-28 08:11:20 | Re: Logging parallel worker draught |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-04-28 07:16:14 | Re: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |