From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RS_EPHEMERAL vs RS_TEMPORARY |
Date: | 2020-02-25 12:37:40 |
Message-ID: | 49677.1582634260@antos |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-02-25 08:30, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out what's specific about RS_EPHEMERAL and RS_TEMPORARY
> > slot kinds. The following comment (see definition of the
> > ReplicationSlotPersistency enumeration) tells when each kind is dropped
>
> The general idea is that an "ephemeral" slot is a future persistent slot that
> is not completely initialized yet. If there is a crash and you find an
> ephemeral slot, you can clean it up. The name is perhaps a bit odd, you can
> think of it as an uninitialized one. A temporary slot is one that behaves
> like a temporary table: It is removed at the end of a session.
>
> Perhaps the implementation differences are not big or are none, but it's
> relevant for reporting. For example, the pg_replication_slots view shows
> which slots are temporary. You wouldn't want to show an ephemeral slot as
> temporary.
ok, so only comments seem to be the problem.
Anyway, the reason I started to think about it was that I noticed an Assert()
statement I considered inaccurate. Does this patch make sense?
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
repl_slot_persist_assert.patch | text/plain | 298 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2020-02-25 13:03:47 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... SET STORAGE does not propagate to indexes |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-02-25 11:11:21 | Re: Error on failed COMMIT |