On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 5:50 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09 PM wangw.f...@fujitsu.com > > > <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So I skip tracking lag during a transaction just like the current HEAD. > > > > Attach the new patch. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, please find the updated patch where I have slightly modified > > > the comments. > > > > > > Sawada-San, Euler, do you have any opinion on this approach? I > > > personally still prefer the approach implemented in v10 [1] especially > > > due to the latest finding by Wang-San that we can't update the > > > lag-tracker apart from when it is invoked at the transaction end. > > > However, I am fine if we like this approach more. > > > > Thank you for updating the patch. > > > > The current patch looks much better than v10 which requires to call to > > update_progress() every path. > > > > Regarding v15 patch, I'm concerned a bit that the new function name, > > update_progress(), is too generic. How about > > update_replation_progress() or something more specific name? > > > > Do you intend to say update_replication_progress()? The word > 'replation' doesn't make sense to me. I am fine with this suggestion.
Yeah, that was a typo. I meant update_replication_progress(). Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
