Re: Any objections to implementing LogicalDecodeMessageCB for pgoutput?

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Pirotte <dpirotte(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Any objections to implementing LogicalDecodeMessageCB for pgoutput?
Date: 2020-11-03 13:19:18
Message-ID: CADK3HHLCM25LM+SwOU-vqVg_cUJXJfoL0dcNWrQaRqfVVM1aLg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David,

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 00:22, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:18:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > A test verifying that a non-transactional message in later aborted
> > transaction is handled correctly would be good.
>
> On top of that, the patch needs a rebase as it visibly fails to apply,
> per the CF bot.
> --
> Michael
>

Where are you with this? Are you able to work on it ?
Dave Cramer

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2020-11-03 13:20:03 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2020-11-03 12:46:38 Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM