Hi, Xuneng! On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 6:54 PM Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > I did a rebase for the patch to v8 and incorporated a few changes: > > 1) Updated documentation, added new tests, and applied minor code > adjustments based on prior review comments. > 2) Tweaked the initialization of waitReplayLSNState so that > non-backend processes can call wait for replay. > > Started a new thread [1] and attached a patch addressing the polling > issue in the function > read_local_xlog_page_guts built on the infra of patch v8. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cabptf7vr99gz5gm_zybynd9mmnovw3pukbevivohkrvjw-d...@mail.gmail.com > > Feedbacks welcome.
Thank you for your reviewing and revising this patch. I see you've integrated most of your points expressed in [1]. I went though them and I've integrated the rest of them. Except this one. > 11) The synopsis might read more clearly as: > - WAIT FOR LSN '<lsn>' [ TIMEOUT <milliseconds | 'duration-with-units'> ] [ > NO_THROW ] I didn't find examples on how we do the similar things on other places of docs. This is why I decided to leave this place as it currently is. Also, I found some mess up with typedefs.list. I've returned the changes to typdefs.list back and re-indented the sources. I'd like to ask your opinion of the way this feature is implemented in terms of grammar: generic parsing implemented in gram.y and the rest is done in wait.c. I think this approach should minimize additional keywords and states for parsing code. This comes at the price of more complex code in wait.c, but I think this is a fair price. Links. 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABPTF7VsoGDMBq34MpLrMSZyxNZvVbgH6-zxtJOg5AwOoYURbw%40mail.gmail.com ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
v9-0001-Implement-WAIT-FOR-command.patch
Description: Binary data
