Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-09-18 11:50:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason seems to be that its method of waiting for replication
>> to happen is completely inapropos. It's watching for the master
>> to say that the slave has received all the WAL, but that does not
>> ensure that the logicalrep apply workers have caught up, does it?
> To my knowledge here's not really any difference between the two in
> logical replication. Received changes are immediately applied, there's
> no equivalent to a walreceiver queing up "logical wal" onto disk.
> So I'm not sure that theory holds.
Well, there's *something* wrong with this test's wait method.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
