Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2024-11-04T15:53:32Z

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 →

Revert pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure
- 3a7ae6b3d91e 18.0 landed
Add 'no_error' argument to pg_wal_replay_wait()
- e546989a269d 18.0 landed
Refactor WaitForLSNReplay() to return the result of waiting
- 73da6b8d1b3e 18.0 landed
Make WaitForLSNReplay() issue FATAL on postmaster death
- 6cfebfe88b9a 18.0 landed
Move LSN waiting declarations and definitions to better place
- 5035172e4ab5 18.0 landed
Update oid for pg_wal_replay_wait() procedure
- e658038772f5 18.0 landed
Move pg_wal_replay_wait() to xlogfuncs.c
- 014f9f34d252 18.0 landed
Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure
- 3c5db1d6b016 18.0 cited

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:19 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> It's looking to me like there's just too much cruft in the quest to
> avoid having to reach consensus on new syntax.  This might be a mistake.
> Is it possible to backtrack on that decision?

There's also the patch that Heikki posted to wait using a
protocol-level facility. Maybe that's just a better fit and we don't
need either a procedure or new syntax.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com