| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Radoslav Nedyalkov <rnedyalkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: table not found on publisher |
| Date: | 2022-02-14 21:44:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2929520.1644875046@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Radoslav Nedyalkov <rnedyalkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If the target is upgraded to pg13 then the initial copy goes fine.
> Unfortunately it is a 40T db in a sunset, so we'd rather won't upgrade.
Yeah, after looking at the code, pre-v13 versions simply don't know
how to do initial sync from anything except a plain table. The changes
involved in that were significant enough that nobody is going to be
on board with back-patching them.
The wording of this error message is pretty confusing though.
I think it might be reasonable to change the back branches so
that they report something like "can't sync from a non-table"
rather than claiming the object doesn't exist at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Hodgson | 2022-02-14 21:44:45 | Re: Moving the master to a new server |
| Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2022-02-14 20:08:42 | Does the postgres jdbc driver (rev 42.3) cache prepared statements |