On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:08:41AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:33:22AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > While testing table sync worker for logical replication I noticed that
> > if the table sync worker of logical replication failed to insert the
> > data for whatever reason, the table sync worker process exits with
> > error. And then the main apply worker launches the table sync worker
> > again soon without interval. This routine is executed at very high
> > frequency without interval.
> > 
> > Should we do put a interval (wal_retrieve_interval or make a new GUC
> > parameter?) for launching the table sync worker?
> [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> [1] 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to