Hi,
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:52 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:44 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:15 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Attached the updated patch v19. > > > > > > > > + maybe_delay_apply(TransactionId xid, TimestampTz finish_ts) > > > > > > > > I look this spelling strange. How about maybe_apply_delay()? > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > It depends on how you read it. I read it like this: > > > > maybe_delay_apply === means "maybe delay [the] apply" > > (which is exactly what the function does) > > > > versus > > > > maybe_apply_delay === means "maybe [the] apply [needs a] delay" > > (which is also correct, but it seemed a more awkward way to say it > > IMO) > > > > This matches more with GUC and all other usages of variables in the patch. So, > I still prefer the second one. Okay. Fixed. Attached the patch v20 that has incorporated all comments so far. Kindly have a look at the attached patch. Best Regards, Takamichi Osumi
v20-0001-Time-delayed-logical-replication-subscriber.patch
Description: v20-0001-Time-delayed-logical-replication-subscriber.patch