Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-09-18 11:50:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason seems to be that its method of waiting for replication >> to happen is completely inapropos. It's watching for the master >> to say that the slave has received all the WAL, but that does not >> ensure that the logicalrep apply workers have caught up, does it?
> To my knowledge here's not really any difference between the two in > logical replication. Received changes are immediately applied, there's > no equivalent to a walreceiver queing up "logical wal" onto disk. > So I'm not sure that theory holds. Well, there's *something* wrong with this test's wait method. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers