From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Smith, Peter" <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |
Date: | 2021-06-22 02:35:38 |
Message-ID: | 2C747EDC-165D-4F2E-914C-5B85A5F65688@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 21, 2021, at 5:57 PM, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> * Is the goal mainly to help automated (TAP) testing?
Absolutely, that was my original motivation. But I don't think that is the primary reason the patch would be accepted. There is a cost to having the logical replication workers attempt ad infinitum to apply a transaction that will never apply.
Also, if you are waiting for a subscription to catch up, it is far from obvious that you will wait forever.
> In that case,
> then maybe you do want to store the error message somewhere other than
> the log files. But still I wonder if results would be unpredictable
> anyway - e.g if there are multiple tables all with errors then it
> depends on the tablesync order of execution which error you see caused
> the auto-disable, right? And if it is not predictable maybe it is less
> useful.
But if you are writing a TAP test, you should be the one controlling whether that is the case. I don't think it would be unpredictable from the point of view of the test author.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-06-22 02:38:47 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
Previous Message | torikoshia | 2021-06-22 02:30:31 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |