Re: Decoding of two-phase xacts missing from CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT command

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <akapila(at)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Decoding of two-phase xacts missing from CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT command
Date: 2021-06-11 19:26:13
Message-ID: 0f520d3ee859f48349ca9ee36c14ab9daf5774c1.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 15:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The new patches look mostly good apart from the below cosmetic
> issues.
> I think the question is whether we want to do these for PG-14 or
> postpone them till PG-15. I think these don't appear to be risky
> changes so we can get them in PG-14 as that might help some outside
> core solutions as appears to be the case for Jeff.

My main interest here is that I'm working on replication protocol
support in a rust library. While doing that, I've encountered a lot of
rough edges (as you may have seen in my recent posts), and this patch
fixes one of them.

But at the same time, several small changes to the protocol spread
across several releases introduces more opportunity for confusion.

If we are confident this is the right direction, then v14 makes sense
for consistency. But if waiting for v15 might result in a better
change, then we should probably just get it into the July CF for v15.

(My apologies if my opinion has drifted a bit since this thread began.)

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2021-06-11 19:52:21 Re: Race condition in InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots()
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-06-11 19:23:53 Re: automatically generating node support functions