Re: logical replication restrictions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: logical replication restrictions
Date
Msg-id 20221109.154123.2154657548250481252.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical replication restrictions  ("Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>)
Responses Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
List pgsql-hackers
At Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:33:00 -0300, "Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com> wrote in 
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, at 9:39 AM, osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Minor review comments for v6.
> Thanks for your review. I'm attaching v7.

Using interval is not standard as this kind of parameters but it seems
convenient. On the other hand, it's not great that the unit month
introduces some subtle ambiguity.  This patch translates a month to 30
days but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. Perhaps we shouldn't
allow the units upper than days.

apply_delay() chokes the message-receiving path so that a not-so-long
delay can cause a replication timeout to fire.  I think we should
process walsender pings even while delaying.  Needing to make
replication timeout longer than apply delay is not great, I think.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: User functions for building SCRAM secrets
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes