| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
| Date: | 2017-09-26 09:07:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvUnqY8TTwZ4gMOcwY+3S+N=07gpuL61p41E6SdAetvCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:
> How to use it
> ==========
> WAITLSN ‘LSN’ [, timeout in ms];
> WAITLSN_INFINITE ‘LSN’;
> WAITLSN_NO_WAIT ‘LSN’;
Adding suffix to the command name looks weird. We don't do so for any
other command.
I propose following syntax options.
WAITLSN lsn;
WAITLSN lsn TIMEOUT delay;
WAITLSN lsn INFINITE;
WAITLSN lsn NOWAIT;
For me that looks rather better. What do you think?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-09-26 09:15:00 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-09-26 09:06:51 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |