Re: pg_receivexlog and replication slots

On 2014-10-04 09:24:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I do wonder whether --create/--drop aren't somewhat wierd for
> > > > pg_receivexlog. It's not that clear what it means. It'd be ugly, but we
> > > > could rename them --create-slot/drop-slot.
> > >
> > > +1 on doing it, -1 on it being ugly.
> >
> > The reason I'm calling it uglyu is that it's different from
> > pg_recvlogical. We could change it there, too? A bit late, but probably
> > better than having a discrepancy forever
> >
> I'm on board to make things as consistent as possible between both
> utilities, the only reason why --create/--drop are used in my patch is for
> the sake of consistency btw. 9.4 ship has not sailed yet, and IMO it is
> important from the user prospective if options are a maximum consistent
> between pg_receivexlog and pg_recvlogical. That would be even better if
> change is done before 9.4beta3 shows up, and I doubt that there are many
> users using the --create/--drop options already.

Any opinion on whether whe should accept both --create and --create-slot
or only the latter? Accepting both would get rid of problems due to
potential usages of the old syntax - and it's easier to type...

I don't really care.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services