Hi,
On 2014-06-04 14:52:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
> imprudent. Anyone think differently?
Agreed. Additionally I also agree with Stefan that the price of a initdb
during beta isn't that high these days.
> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other
> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition
> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog
> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago.
Other things I'd like to change in that case:
* rename pg_replication_slots.xmin to something else. After the replication slot patch went in, in another patch's
reviewyou/Tom objected that xmin isn't the best name. The only problem being that I still don't have a better idea than
myoriginal 'data_xmin' which Robert disliked.
* Standardize on either slot_name for the replication slot's name. Currently some functions have a parameter named
'slotname'but all columnnames (from SRFs) are slot_name. That's not really bad since the parameter names don't really
meanmuch, but if we can we should fix it imo.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services