On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:15 PM Mark Dilger
<mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> The prior version of the patch only picked up the change if it happened to start a new worker, but could process
multipletransactions without noticing the change. Now, it is limited to finishing the current transaction. Would you
preferthat the worker noticed the change in ownership and aborted the transaction on the subscriber side? Or should
theALTER SUBSCRIPTION..OWNER TO block? I don't see much advantage to either of those options, but I also don't think I
haveany knock-down argument for my approach either. What do you think?
>
How about allowing to change ownership only for disabled
subscriptions? Basically, users need to first disable the subscription
and then change its ownership. Now, disabling is an asynchronous
operation but we won't allow the ownership change command to proceed
unless the subscription is marked disabled and all the apply/sync
workers are not running. After the ownership is changed, users can
enable it. We already have 'slot_name' parameter's dependency on
whether the subscription is marked enabled or not.
This will add some steps in changing the ownership of a subscription
but I think it will be predictable.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.