On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:57 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 04/11/2024 17:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:19 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >> It's looking to me like there's just too much cruft in the quest to
> >> avoid having to reach consensus on new syntax. This might be a mistake.
> >> Is it possible to backtrack on that decision?
> >
> > There's also the patch that Heikki posted to wait using a
> > protocol-level facility.
>
> It was Peter E
>
> > Maybe that's just a better fit and we don't need either a procedure
> > or new syntax.
> I think it would still be good to expose the feature at SQL level too.
> Makes it easier to test and makes it usable without client library
> changes, for example.
+1,
Also, it could potentially has wider use cases. For example, waiting
for replay of not latest changes, but some intermediate changes. Or
issuing pg_wal_replay_wait() from another process than one which made
the changes.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
