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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+aUMLu3Q-y6A7nX6kfg_0_6zcRSevWK6Sx6kY1VegCBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys  ("Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
List pgsql-hackers
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?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Next
From: "Kumar, Sachin"
Date:
Subject: RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication