On 25/04/17 19:54, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I feel it's getting a bit late for reworkings of this extent, also > considering the marginal nature of the problem we are trying to fix. My > patch from April 18 is very localized and gets the job done. > > I think this is still a good direction to investigate, but if we have to > extend the hash table API to get it done, this might not be the best time. >
Yeah the hash API change needed is a bummer at this stage. One thing I am missing in your patch however is cleanup of entries for relations that finished sync. I wonder if it would be enough to just destroy the hash when we get to empty list. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
