On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:08:41AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:33:22AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > While testing table sync worker for logical replication I noticed that > > if the table sync worker of logical replication failed to insert the > > data for whatever reason, the table sync worker process exits with > > error. And then the main apply worker launches the table sync worker > > again soon without interval. This routine is executed at very high > > frequency without interval. > > > > Should we do put a interval (wal_retrieve_interval or make a new GUC > > parameter?) for launching the table sync worker? > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts > toward speedy resolution. Thanks. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
