Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Date: 2023-04-04 18:13:01
Message-ID: d81ec92b53ce3d1b34896592611da6808dae44a5.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 11:42 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Done in V58 and now this is as simple as:

Minor comments on 0004 (address if you agree):

* Consider static inline for WalSndWakeupProcessRequests()?
* Is the WalSndWakeup() in KeepFileRestoredFromArchive() more like the
flush case? Why is the second argument unconditionally true? I don't
think the cascading logical walsenders have anything to do until the
WAL is actually applied.

Otherwise, looks good!

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2023-04-04 18:14:36 Re: monitoring usage count distribution
Previous Message Gregory Stark (as CFM) 2023-04-04 18:03:45 Re: Remove dead macro exec_subplan_get_plan