Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Drouvot, Bertrand
Subject Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Date
Msg-id 8c6e7670-3914-35d1-7977-34f60e598477@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 4/5/23 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
>>> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> minor nitpick:
>>> +
>>> + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
>>> + /* FALLTHROUGH */
>>>
>>> Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways?
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean, you'd prefer what was done in v52/0002?
>>
> 
> No, I was thinking that instead of two comments, we need one here.
> But, now thinking about it, do we really need to fall through in this
> case, if so why? Shouldn't this case be handled after
> PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_DATABASE?
> 

Indeed, thanks! Done in V61 posted up-thread.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Next
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys