Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: amit.kapila16@gmail.com
Cc: kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com, smithpb2250@gmail.com,
osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
sawada.mshk@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz,
peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com,
andres@anarazel.de
Date: 2023-02-14T01:05:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Add wal_sender_shutdown_timeout GUC to limit shutdown wait for replication
- a8f45dee9176 19 (unreleased) landed
-
pg_upgrade: Add --copy option
- 746915c68669 16.0 cited
-
Prevent possibility of panics during shutdown checkpoint.
- c6c333436491 10.0 cited
-
Support clean switchover.
- 985bd7d49726 9.4.0 cited
At Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:27:01 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:26 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > IMHO I vaguely don't like that we lose a means to specify the default > > behavior here. And I'm not sure we definitely don't need other than > > flush and immedaite for both physical and logical replication. > > > > If we can think of any use case that requires its extension then it > makes sense to make it a non-boolean option but otherwise, let's keep > things simple by having a boolean option. What do you think about the need for explicitly specifying the default? I'm fine with specifying the default using a single word, such as WAIT_FOR_REMOTE_FLUSH. > > If it's > > not the case, I don't object to make it a Boolean. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center