Re: Logical replication timeout problem

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Date: 2022-04-21 02:19:29
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JVyj94EoEXKnoWviDRzf7mXBgXV=L_puG8L9=PyotQ=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:22 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > I think it would
> > be then better to have it in the same place in HEAD as well?
>
> As far as I can see in the v17 patch, which is for HEAD, we don't add
> a variable to LogicalDecodingContext, but did you refer to another
> patch?
>

No, I thought it is better to follow the same approach in HEAD as
well. Do you see any problem with it?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2022-04-21 02:25:10 Re: typos
Previous Message wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com 2022-04-21 02:14:41 RE: Logical replication timeout problem