Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay
Date
Msg-id 20190708080535.GG2709@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay  (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:56:25PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:34 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2019-Jan-30, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> > > I wonder if it can be considered as acceptable solution of the problem or
> > > there can be some better approach?
> >
> > I didn't find one.
>
> It sounds like you are in agreement that there is a problem and this
> is the best solution.  I didn't look at these patches, I'm just asking
> with my Commitfest manager hat on: did I understand correctly, does
> this need a TAP test, possibly the one Alvaro posted, and if so, could
> we please have a fresh patch that includes the test, so we can see it
> passing the test in CI?

Please note that I have not looked at that stuff in details, but I
find the patch proposed kind of ugly with the scan of the last segment
using a WAL reader to find out what is the last LSN and react on
that..  This does not feel right.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kNN for btree