| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |
| Date: | 2024-11-04 15:57:19 |
| Message-ID: | 8d60e621-e971-458e-9e20-f5902c8c852a@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 04/11/2024 17:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:19 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> It's looking to me like there's just too much cruft in the quest to
>> avoid having to reach consensus on new syntax. This might be a mistake.
>> Is it possible to backtrack on that decision?
>
> There's also the patch that Heikki posted to wait using a
> protocol-level facility.
It was Peter E
> Maybe that's just a better fit and we don't need either a procedure
> or new syntax.
I think it would still be good to expose the feature at SQL level too.
Makes it easier to test and makes it usable without client library
changes, for example.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-11-04 16:02:36 | pgsql: Split ProcSleep function into JoinWaitQueue and ProcSleep |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-04 15:53:32 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-11-04 16:07:48 | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-04 15:53:32 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |