| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 13:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+aUMLu3Q-y6A7nX6kfg_0_6zcRSevWK6Sx6kY1VegCBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > minor nitpick:
> > +
> > + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
> > + /* FALLTHROUGH */
> >
> > Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways?
> >
>
> Do you mean, you'd prefer what was done in v52/0002?
>
No, I was thinking that instead of two comments, we need one here.
But, now thinking about it, do we really need to fall through in this
case, if so why? Shouldn't this case be handled after
PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_DATABASE?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kumar, Sachin | 2023-04-05 13:25:12 | RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-04-05 13:10:55 | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |