On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we need something like this[1] so that we can better control
> > > > the streaming.
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1. The additional advantage would be that we can generate parallel
> > > apply and new streaming tests with much lesser data. Shi-San, can you
> > > please start a new thread for the GUC patch proposed by you as
> > > indicated by Dilip?
> > >
> >
> > OK, I started a new thread for it. [1]
> >
>
> Thanks. I think it is better to go ahead with this patch and once we
> decide what is the right thing to do in terms of GUC then we can try
> to add additional tests for this. Anyway, it is not that the code
> added by this patch is not getting covered by existing tests. What do
> you think?
That makes sense to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com