| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |
| Date: | 2017-08-17 01:25:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ6L3ytXeOVhsTxmRAGWDNvo_ev_Umk3gimjz=q4uTGvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think we should constrain the API to only allow later LSNs than
> currently in the slot, rather than arbitrary ones. That's why I was
> thinking of "forward". I'm not convinced it's a good / safe idea to
> allow arbitrary values to be set.
Maybe I shouldn't play the devil's advocate here, but isn't a feature
like this by definition only for people who Know What They Are Doing?
If so, why not let them back the slot up? I'm sure that will work out
just fine. They Know What They Are Doing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-17 01:32:03 | Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-08-17 01:09:26 | Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order |