From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
cc: noah@leadboat.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls
In-reply-to: <20200417.170015.1981391722024305719.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
References: <20200414013849.GA886648@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <8807.1586828716@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200417054146.GA1061007@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200417.170015.1981391722024305719.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:00:15 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <20277.1587131965.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:59:25 -0400
Message-ID: <20278.1587131965@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> At Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:41:46 -0700, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote in 
>> I'm favoring (1).  Other preferences?

> Starting from the current shape, I think 1 is preferable, since that
> waiting logic is no longer shared between logical and physical
> replications.  But I'm not sure I like calling WalSndWaitForWal()
> (maybe with previous location + 1?), because the function seems to do
> too-much.

I'm far from an expert on this code, but it does look like there's
a lot of stuff in WalSndWaitForWal that is specific to logical rep,
so I'm not sure that (1) is workable.  At the very least there'd
have to be a bunch more conditionals in that function than there are
now.  In the end, a separate copy for physical rep might be better.

(BTW, I think this code is in desperate need of a renaming
campaign to make it clearer which functions are for logical rep,
physical rep, or both.)

			regards, tom lane