| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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 15:53:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobnk_CRhgmXkzmbfa4_1S6Sp6rvE2PhZn+TqagVSN-HyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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. Maybe that's just a better fit and we don't
need either a procedure or new syntax.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-11-04 15:57:19 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-04 15:26:37 | pgsql: pg_combinebackup: Error if incremental file exists in full backu |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-11-04 15:57:19 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-04 15:26:41 | Re: small pg_combinebackup improvements |