On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yep, sounds a good thing to do if master requested answer from the
>>> client in the keepalive message. Something like the patch attached
>>> would make the deal.
>>
>> Isn't it better to do this only when replication slot is used?
> Makes sense. What about a check using reportFlushPosition then?
Sounds reasonable. Thanks for updating the patch!
But the patch could not already be applied to the master cleanly
because c4f99d2 heavily changed the code that the patch also touches...
I rewrote the patch and pushed it to both master and REL9_4_STABLE.
Anyway, thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao