| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication origins and timelines |
| Date: | 2017-06-01 01:37:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170601013729.GZ3151@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres,
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2017-05-31 21:33:26 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > This only starts becoming an issue once logical replication slots can
> > > exist on replicas and be maintained to follow the master's slot state.
> > > Which is incomplete in Pg10 (not exposed to users) but I plan to
> > > finish getting in for pg11, making this a possible issue to be
> > > addressed.
> >
> > Fair enough. I'm disappointed that we ended up with that as the
> > solution for PG10
>
> This has widely been debated, and it's not exactly new that development
> happens incrementally, so I don't have particularly much sympathy for
> that POV.
I do understand that, of course, but hadn't quite realized yet that
we're talking only about replication slots on replicas. Apologies for
the noise.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-06-01 01:38:38 | Re: Replication origins and timelines |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-06-01 01:36:22 | Re: Replication origins and timelines |