Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZbdnPrB8XOJU6z2p@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:24:11AM +0530, shveta malik wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:02 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > Attach the V70 patch set which addressed above comments and Bertrand's comments in [1] > > > > Since v70-0001 is pushed, rebased and attached v70_2 patches. There > are no new changes. Thanks! Looking at 0001: + When altering the + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-slot-name"><literal>slot_name</literal></link>, + the <literal>failover</literal> property value of the named slot may differ from the + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link> + parameter specified in the subscription. When creating the slot, + ensure the slot <literal>failover</literal> property matches the + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link> + parameter value of the subscription. Otherwise, the slot on the publisher may + not be enabled to be synced to standbys. Not related to this patch series but while at it shouldn't we also add a few words about two_phase too? (I mean ensure the slot property matchs the subscription one). Or would it be better to create a dedicated patch (outside of this thread) for the "two_phase" remark? (If so I can take care of it). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: