From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Date: | 2022-03-23 18:50:34 |
Message-ID: | 0da1d053-2213-e54c-87d8-042d1ed76b63@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18.03.22 23:34, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 3/15/22 09:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 21.02.22 13:09, Euler Taveira wrote:
>>> A new tool called pg_subscriber does this conversion and is tightly
>>> integrated
>>> with Postgres.
>>
>> Are we comfortable with the name pg_subscriber? It seems too general.
>> Are we planning other subscriber-related operations in the future? If
>> so, we should at least make this one use a --create option or
>> something like that.
>
>
> Not really sold on the name (and I didn't much like the name
> pglogical_create_subscriber either, although it's a cool facility and
> I'm happy to see us adopting something like it).
>
> ISTM we should have a name that conveys that we are *converting* a
> replica or equivalent to a subscriber.
The pglogical tool includes the pg_basebackup run, so it actually
"creates" the subscriber from scratch. Whether this tool is also doing
that is still being discussed.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-23 19:02:23 | Re: warn if GUC set to an invalid shared library |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-03-23 18:38:33 | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |