Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JuC0CwNRhncyhU6T73gRA4obz0BR2atxsT+xgPZkv93w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber (Zane Duffield <duffieldzane@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber
RE: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:37 AM Zane Duffield <duffieldzane@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I see the difference you are pointing to. Ideally, the checks should >> be the same unless there is a specific reason for them to be >> different, which should be mentioned in the comments. BTW, do you see >> any problems due to name conflicts while using this tool, or is it a >> code-level observation? > > > In my case the --subscription and --replication-slot options are used to control the identifiers; the conflict was theuser's fault, not the program's. > Okay, I find your case a good reason to add such a check, apart from making the code consistent in terms of these checks. One thing I was thinking is whether it makes sense to add these checks only in --dry-run mode because we normally don't expect such conflicts. Otherwise, each such check adds an additional network round-trip. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: