Hi, On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 5:51 PM Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 5:13 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2025-11-03 16:06:58 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2025-Nov-03, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like to give this subject another chance for pg19. I'm going to > > > > push this if no objections. > > > > > > Sure. I don't understand why patches 0002 and 0003 are separate though. > > > > FWIW, I appreciate such splits. Even if the functionality isn't usable > > independently, it's still different type of code that's affected. And the > > patches are each big enough to make that worthwhile for easier review. > > Thank you for the feedback, pushed.
Thanks for pushing them! > > One thing that'd be nice to do once we have WAIT FOR is to make the common > > case of wait_for_catchup() use this facility, instead of polling... > > The draft patch for that is attached. WAIT FOR doesn't handle all the > possible use cases of wait_for_catchup(), but I've added usage when > it's appropriate. Interesting, could this approach be extended to the flush and other modes as well? I might need to spend some time to understand it before I can provide a meaningful review. Best, Xuneng
