| From: | Anna Akenteva <a(dot)akenteva(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
| Date: | 2020-04-08 19:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | d3ff2e363af60b345f82396992595a03@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-04-08 04:09, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> How about something like the follows.
>
> BEGIN AFTER ColId Sconst
> BEGIN FOLOWING ColId Sconst
>
> UNTIL <absolute time>;
> LIMIT BY <interval>;
> WITHIN Iconst;
>
> regards.
I like your suggested keywords! I think that "AFTER" + "WITHIN" sound
the most natural. We could completely give up the LSN keyword for now.
The final command could look something like:
BEGIN AFTER ‘0/303EC60’ WITHIN '5 seconds';
or
BEGIN AFTER ‘0/303EC60’ WITHIN 5000;
I'd like to hear others' opinions on the syntax as well.
--
Anna Akenteva
Postgres Professional:
The Russian Postgres Company
http://www.postgrespro.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-08 19:38:35 | Re: where should I stick that backup? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-08 19:30:04 | Re: Parallel copy |