On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:27 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> writes: > > Implement waiting for given lsn at transaction start > > This commit adds following optional clause to BEGIN and START TRANSACTION > > commands. > > WAIT FOR LSN lsn [ TIMEOUT timeout ] > > This seems like a really carelessly chosen syntax --- *three* new > keywords, when you probably didn't need any. Are you not aware that > there is distributed overhead in the grammar for every keyword? > Plus, each new keyword carries the risk of breaking existing > applications, since it no longer works as an alias-not-preceded-by-AS. > > I have no particular opinion on the value of the feature, but I wish > a different syntax had been chosen. >
I was curious whether the syntax got this kind of discussion, followed the discussion link, and the last email seen reads: """ > Worse, it was marked Needs Review even though no new patch was provided. > > I'm going to set this back to Returned with Feedback. If anyone has a good > reason that it should be in the CF we can always revive it. +1. """ While there is lots of discussion it ended up with the thread at "returned with feedback" (a month ago) and now we have a commit. There seems to be other relevant discussion not linked to. David J.
