RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

Hi,

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 5:40 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> At Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:38:11 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote in
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > At Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:12:14 +0530, Amit Kapila
> > > <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > > So, shall we check if the result of parse_int is in the range 0
> > > > and PG_INT32_MAX to ameliorate this concern?
> > >
> > > Yeah, it is exactly what I wanted to suggest.
> > >
> > > > If this works then we need to
> > > > probably change the return value of defGetMinApplyDelay() to int32.
> > >
> > > I didn't thought doing that, int can store all values in the valid
> > > range (I'm assuming we implicitly assume int >= int32 in bit width)
> > > and it is the natural integer in C. Either will do for me but I
> > > slightly prefer to use int there.
> > >
> >
> > I think it would be clear to use int32 because the parameter where we
> > store the return value is also int32.
>
> I'm fine with that.
Thank you for confirming.

Attached the updated patch v26 accordingly.
I slightly adjusted the comments in defGetMinApplyDelay
on this point as well.

Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi