Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1J0cLtAKUg1ezJdHZ1EaSrs-XY0imcNd=16AVS9gSrXxA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)  ("Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>)
Responses RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 5:02 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
>
> -   elog(DEBUG2, "sending feedback (force %d) to recv %X/%X, write %X/%X, flush %X/%X in-delayed: %d",
> +   elog(DEBUG2, "sending feedback (force %d) to recv %X/%X, write %X/%X, flush %X/%X, apply delay: %s",
>          force,
>          LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(recvpos),
>          LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(writepos),
>          LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(flushpos),
> -        in_delayed_apply);
> +        in_delayed_apply? "yes" : "no");
>
> It is better to use a string to represent the yes/no option.
>

I think it is better to be consistent with the existing force
parameter which is also boolean, otherwise, it will look odd.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Next
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: psql: psql variable BACKEND_PID