Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KLu4JhTvDkiL7dAQfOoEbxP22JXqSMEQjNSQ8QFXS94w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:26 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Fri, 10 Feb 2023 12:40:43 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote in > > Dear Amit, > > > > > Can't we have this option just as a bool (like shutdown_immediate)? > > > Why do we want to keep multiple modes? > > > > Of course we can use boolean instead, but current style is motivated by the post[1]. > > This allows to add another option in future, whereas I do not have idea now. > > > > I want to ask other reviewers which one is better... > > > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230208.112717.1140830361804418505.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com > > IMHO I vaguely don't like that we lose a means to specify the default > behavior here. And I'm not sure we definitely don't need other than > flush and immedaite for both physical and logical replication. > If we can think of any use case that requires its extension then it makes sense to make it a non-boolean option but otherwise, let's keep things simple by having a boolean option. > If it's > not the case, I don't object to make it a Boolean. > Thanks. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: