RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
Date: 2023-02-10 12:40:43
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB5866FA2C3331E7603BD2C56AF5DE9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Amit,

> Can't we have this option just as a bool (like shutdown_immediate)?
> Why do we want to keep multiple modes?

Of course we can use boolean instead, but current style is motivated by the post[1].
This allows to add another option in future, whereas I do not have idea now.

I want to ask other reviewers which one is better...

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230208.112717.1140830361804418505.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-02-10 14:23:35 Re: pgsql: pgstat: Track more detailed relation IO statistics
Previous Message Jeroen Vermeulen 2023-02-10 12:19:29 Re: libpq: PQgetCopyData() and allocation overhead