MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAJpy0uB19aKEgVgh8gwzj87NUyDgOf01boa-6xJZK+nhb=3W4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+h4mOvRqRaGfUtSgZuBhzWWmrBcY3jQ4DDV=cEJ4dwnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY7PR01MB145543A74547443E49E4993E7F58EA@TY7PR01MB14554.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJpy0uD6D294d=Hq4oROmtKAew5DfKERNxs=DsAwUFBFF2kERg@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY7PR01MB14554FB7D02601425DE3752DEF58FA@TY7PR01MB14554.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1JvYROk5usAX0Uy=00VACB=w1rvUcyoKvRuke5EMfmi3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <e0508305-bc6a-417c-b969-36564d632f9e@iki.fi>
 <CAJpy0uD5T692uyaRr0GKqd1eLHW55A0=MH-V8tRPicTxDqMu=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1LN+T1pLfGBxDW-gps5h-YX6FAjRwkKaV2wwQDDVdi6fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uBm7m5AFgg6xgWB6msGrivusoDe7PKg9XKHYm_JYQnegg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JWM_GxnDn8T0+B3+dEqzACkUj7rvfy_B_ukq5myvqxGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1JWM_GxnDn8T0+B3+dEqzACkUj7rvfy_B_ukq5myvqxGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:03:27 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJpy0uB-orRxTL-8MJ+i9riBZkvVdP_T+p71GyHnJRYw-MrXVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] add new parameter to pg_replication_origin_session_setup
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Doruk Yilmaz <doruk@mixrank.com>,
	shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uB-orRxTL-8MJ%2Bi9riBZkvVdP_T%2Bp71GyHnJRYw-MrXVg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 1:51=E2=80=AFPM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:41=E2=80=AFPM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I see your point but one advantage with the proposed code change is
> > > that it started to appear that we can extend this part of code easily
> > > in the future as it separates most of the handling related to when a
> > > user has given acquired_by parameter's value as zero and non-zero.
> >
> > Okay, yes. So I am okay with it. The slight change I suggested (if to
> > else-if) and a comment will make it more clean.
> >
>
> I have tried to address both your suggestions in the attached. See, if
> this looks okay to you now?
>

LGTM now, thanks!

thanks
Shveta