On 6/4/17 22:38, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 03/06/17 16:12, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Petr Jelinek >> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: >> >> >> While I was testing something for different thread I noticed that I >> manage transactions incorrectly in this patch. Fixed here, I didn't test >> it much yet (it takes a while as you know :) ). Not sure if it's related >> to the issue you've seen though. >> >> >> This conflicts again with Peter E's recent commit >> 3c9bc2157a4f465b3c070d1250597568d2dc285f >> > > Rebased on top of current HEAD.
Committed that, with some further updates of comments to reflect the changes. I do like the simplification of the state progression. Perhaps it could be simplified even further, by eliminating the SYNCDONE setting in LogicalRepSyncTableStart() and making it go through the apply loop and end up in process_syncing_tables_for_sync() in all cases. Which is kind of what the comments at the top of the file suggest would happen anyway. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers