Message-ID: <8c6e7670-3914-35d1-7977-34f60e598477@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:57:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
 Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>, fabriziomello@gmail.com,
 tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>,
 Rahila Syed <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <ba5aa952-ef8c-b862-69df-0ad9e5d19d23@gmail.com>
 <20230330095449.47yz2q4mn27t6xgl@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAA4eK1JX-HAmm3TuY=wCSgom+hmiKtkf_xaJLRX9JBo-iXUxHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+Tj3B+ODmdRhz7F3fnhang9qEUQatknMuZdi91e=QXeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <68a47e4c-f4bb-45ae-28be-938af60b203c@gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1L_Zc+7cjm0OhktiPT5xn3=yXn6oenLuEyvJY_CM6T6Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e34ab1df-573b-20c1-664a-697851fc736d@gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+aUMLu3Q-y6A7nX6kfg_0_6zcRSevWK6Sx6kY1VegCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+aUMLu3Q-y6A7nX6kfg_0_6zcRSevWK6Sx6kY1VegCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8c6e7670-3914-35d1-7977-34f60e598477%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 4/5/23 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
>>> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> minor nitpick:
>>> +
>>> + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
>>> + /* FALLTHROUGH */
>>>
>>> Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways?
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean, you'd prefer what was done in v52/0002?
>>
> 
> No, I was thinking that instead of two comments, we need one here.
> But, now thinking about it, do we really need to fall through in this
> case, if so why? Shouldn't this case be handled after
> PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_DATABASE?
> 

Indeed, thanks! Done in V61 posted up-thread.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com