Re: Logical replication timeout problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1K6rHbMrKHuqGGULg_31bZmgndd+BL=nT0y3KfMUG6pHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical replication timeout problem  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Logical replication timeout problem  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:46 AM wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > ```
>
> I'm concerned that this 4-byte padding at the end of the struct could
> depend on platforms (there might be no padding in 32-bit platforms?).
>

Good point, but ...

> It seems to me that it's better to put it after fast_forward where the
> new field should fall within the padding space.
>

Can we add the variable in between the existing variables in the
structure in the back branches? Normally, we add at the end to avoid
any breakage of existing apps. See commit 56e366f675 and discussion at
[1]. That is related to enum but I think we follow the same for
structures.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7dab0929-a966-0c0a-4726-878fced2fe00%40enterprisedb.com
-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Next
From: Niyas Sait
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support