Hi,
On 2/13/23 11:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 1/26/23 10:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 1/24/23 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
calling
On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/26/23 10:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/24/23 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > > 1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
> > > > calling wait_for_catch
Hi,
On 1/26/23 10:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 1/24/23 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
calling wait_for_catchup() and omitting the 'mode' and 'lsn' arguments
would already do the same th
On 2023-Jan-26, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 1/24/23 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
> > calling wait_for_catchup() and omitting the 'mode' and 'lsn' arguments
> > would already do the same thing. So what we should do is patch pla
Hi,
On 1/24/23 7:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Looking again, I have two thoughts for making things easier:
1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
calling wait_for_catchup() and omitting the 'mode' and 'lsn' arguments
would already do the same thing. So what we should do
Looking again, I have two thoughts for making things easier:
1. I don't think wait_for_write_catchup is necessary, because
calling wait_for_catchup() and omitting the 'mode' and 'lsn' arguments
would already do the same thing. So what we should do is patch places
that currently give those two arg
Hi,
On 1/18/23 10:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jan-18, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
The current calls are done that way:
wait_for_replay_catchup called:
- 8 times with write LSN as an argument
- 1 time with insert LSN as an argument
- 16 times with flush LSN as an argument
So it looks
On 2023-Jan-18, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> The current calls are done that way:
>
> wait_for_replay_catchup called:
> - 8 times with write LSN as an argument
> - 1 time with insert LSN as an argument
> - 16 times with flush LSN as an argument
> So it looks like that providing a node as a second
Hi,
On 1/17/23 12:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jan-17, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
The idea has been raised in [1], where we are adding more calls to
wait_for_catchup() in 'replay' mode.
This seems mostly useless as presented. Maybe if you're able to reduce
the noise on the second argu
On 2023-Jan-17, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> The idea has been raised in [1], where we are adding more calls to
> wait_for_catchup() in 'replay' mode.
This seems mostly useless as presented. Maybe if you're able to reduce
the noise on the second argument it would be worth something -- namely,
if t
10 matches
Mail list logo
