On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 8:12 PM Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Aug 2023, at 07:38, Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > A rebase was needed due to a recent push [1].
> >
> > PSA v3.
>
>
> > On 14 Jan 2024, at 10:43, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > I have changed the status of the patch to "Waiting on A
> On 15 Aug 2023, at 07:38, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> A rebase was needed due to a recent push [1].
>
> PSA v3.
> On 14 Jan 2024, at 10:43, vignesh C wrote:
>
> I have changed the status of the patch to "Waiting on Author" as
> Amit's queries at [1] have not been verified and concluded. Plea
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 08:09, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> A rebase was needed due to a recent push [1].
I have changed the status of the patch to "Waiting on Author" as
Amit's queries at [1] have not been verified and concluded. Please
feel free to address them and change the status back again.
[1] -
A rebase was needed due to a recent push [1].
PSA v3.
--
[1]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/2a8b40e3681921943a2989fd4ec6cdbf8766566c
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
v3-0001-logicalrep_worker_launch-limit-checks.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 2:29 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> While reviewing other threads I have been looking more closely at the
> the logicalrep_worker_launch() function. IMO the logic of that
> function seems not quite right.
>
> Here are a few things I felt are strange:
>
...
>
> 2. There is some c
The previous patch was accidentally not resetting the boolean limit
flags to false for retries.
Fixed in v2.
--
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
v2-0001-logicalrep_worker_launch-limit-checks.patch
Description: Binary data
