On 2014-06-30 10:10:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > Check interrupts during logical decoding more frequently.
>
> FWIW, I think it's usually better style to put CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
> at the tops of loops rather than the bottoms. If you put it at the
> bottom, it's easily b
Andres Freund writes:
> Check interrupts during logical decoding more frequently.
FWIW, I think it's usually better style to put CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
at the tops of loops rather than the bottoms. If you put it at the
bottom, it's easily bypassed unintentionally by a "continue" somewhere
in the m
Check interrupts during logical decoding more frequently.
When reading large amounts of preexisting WAL during logical decoding
using the SQL interface we possibly could fail to check interrupts in
due time. Similarly the same could happen on systems with a very high
WAL volume while creating a ne
Check interrupts during logical decoding more frequently.
When reading large amounts of preexisting WAL during logical decoding
using the SQL interface we possibly could fail to check interrupts in
due time. Similarly the same could happen on systems with a very high
WAL volume while creating a ne
