On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:57 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > On 04/11/2024 17:53, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:19 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > >> It's looking to me like there's just too much cruft in the quest to > >> avoid having to reach consensus on new syntax. This might be a mistake. > >> Is it possible to backtrack on that decision? > > > > There's also the patch that Heikki posted to wait using a > > protocol-level facility. > > It was Peter E > > > Maybe that's just a better fit and we don't need either a procedure > > or new syntax. > I think it would still be good to expose the feature at SQL level too. > Makes it easier to test and makes it usable without client library > changes, for example.
+1, Also, it could potentially has wider use cases. For example, waiting for replay of not latest changes, but some intermediate changes. Or issuing pg_wal_replay_wait() from another process than one which made the changes. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
