| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wait event and archive_command |
| Date: | 2021-11-18 03:43:21 |
| Message-ID: | YZXL2dB7x3NsCWDr@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:23:17AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Yes, that's possible. But isn't it uglier to make ExecuteRecoveryCommand() have
> the map of command name and wait event? So I feel inclined to avoid adding
> something like the following code into the function... Thought?
FWIW, I find cleaner, and less bug-prone, the approach taken by
Fujii-san's patch to have the wait event set as an argument of the
function rather than trying to guess it from the command data.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-18 03:52:23 | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-18 03:26:07 | Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress |