| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | bt23nguyent <bt23nguyent(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_logical_emit_message() misses a XLogFlush() |
| Date: | 2023-10-17 06:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JbWkUwAudnTC7P6vgwLycTDELduSNM2nL-+PmEJ6O4Eg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:47 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 03:20:30PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I would prefer to associate the new parameter 'flush' with
> > non-transactional messages as per the proposed patch.
>
> Check.
>
> > Is there a reason to make the functions strict now when they were not earlier?
>
> These two are already STRICT on HEAD:
> =# select proname, provolatile, proisstrict from pg_proc
> where proname ~ 'message';
> proname | provolatile | proisstrict
> -------------------------+-------------+-------------
> pg_logical_emit_message | v | t
> pg_logical_emit_message | v | t
> (2 rows)
>
oh, I misunderstood the default.
>
> An updated version is attached. How does it look?
>
LGTM.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2023-10-17 06:52:13 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-17 06:25:14 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |