Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade
Date: 2017-05-09 08:54:31
Message-ID: 4c836369-c2e8-ed50-6aa0-708e1e7e85b6@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/05/17 07:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/17 21:44, Noah Misch wrote:
>>>> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they
>>>> are dumped by default, just like we have --no-blobs, --no-owner,
>>>> --no-password, --no-privileges, --no-acl, --no-tablespaces, and
>>>> --no-security-labels. It seems like there is probably a fairly large
>>>> use case for excluding subscriptions even if you have sufficient
>>>> permissions to dump them.
>
> Reading the thread for the first time, I am +1 on that. It feels more
> natural to have subscriptions by default when taking a dump, and it is
> useful as well to be able to override the default so as they are not
> included.

Yes I agree. There was also talk of generalizing the --no-* stuff so we
could filter arbitrary objects which is something I would prefer as
solution, but at this point that's potential PG11 feature not PG10 one.

>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 5/6/17 14:50, Noah Misch wrote:
>>>> I consider this item low priority and don't plan to work on it before
>>>> all the other open items under logical replication are addressed.
>>>>
>>>> (Here, working on it would include thinking further about whether it is
>>>> necessary at all or what alternatives might look like.)
>>>
>>> That's informative, but it's not a valid status update. This PostgreSQL 10
>>> open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a valid status
>>> update within 24 hours. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
>>
>> Fair enough. I have set myself a reminder to report back on May 30.
>
> I think that it would be nice to fix that even before beta, so
> attached is a patch to add --no-subscriptions to pg_dump, pg_dumpall
> and pg_restore.
>

Looks okay to me, it's simple enough patch.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2017-05-09 08:57:24 Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-05-09 08:51:40 Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)