Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes: > At Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:41:46 -0700, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote in >> I'm favoring (1). Other preferences?
> Starting from the current shape, I think 1 is preferable, since that > waiting logic is no longer shared between logical and physical > replications. But I'm not sure I like calling WalSndWaitForWal() > (maybe with previous location + 1?), because the function seems to do > too-much. I'm far from an expert on this code, but it does look like there's a lot of stuff in WalSndWaitForWal that is specific to logical rep, so I'm not sure that (1) is workable. At the very least there'd have to be a bunch more conditionals in that function than there are now. In the end, a separate copy for physical rep might be better. (BTW, I think this code is in desperate need of a renaming campaign to make it clearer which functions are for logical rep, physical rep, or both.) regards, tom lane