RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication

Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>

To: 'Amit Kapila' <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "sawada.mshk@gmail.com" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, "michael@paquier.xyz" <michael@paquier.xyz>, "peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com" <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, "dilipbalaut@gmail.com" <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, "andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>

Date: 2023-02-10T12:40:43Z

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

Dear Amit,

> Can't we have this option just as a bool (like shutdown_immediate)?
> Why do we want to keep multiple modes?

Of course we can use boolean instead, but current style is motivated by the post[1].
This allows to add another option in future, whereas I do not have idea now.

I want to ask other reviewers which one is better...

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230208.112717.1140830361804418505.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED