On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09 PM wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com
<wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> So I skip tracking lag during a transaction just like the current HEAD.
> Attach the new patch.
>
Thanks, please find the updated patch where I have slightly modified
the comments.
Sawada-San, Euler, do you have any opinion on this approach? I
personally still prefer the approach implemented in v10 [1] especially
due to the latest finding by Wang-San that we can't update the
lag-tracker apart from when it is invoked at the transaction end.
However, I am fine if we like this approach more.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS3PR01MB6275E0C2B4D9E488AD7CBA209E1F9%40OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
