On Mon, May 9, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Thanks. The patch LGTM. I'll push and back-patch this after the > current minor release is done unless there are more comments related > to this work. Looks sane to me. (I only tested the HEAD version)
+ bool end_xact = ctx->end_xact; Do you really need a new variable here? It has the same name and the new one isn't changed during the execution. Does this issue deserve a test? A small wal_receiver_timeout. Although, I'm not sure how stable the test will be. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
