Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKG+ydu5yfT9G70j7sT-4s4q3gtCZxm5UG2E0+K1-rry48A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Replication & recovery_min_apply_delay
List pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb