Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8c6e7670-3914-35d1-7977-34f60e598477@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 4/5/23 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > 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? > Indeed, thanks! Done in V61 posted up-thread. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: