From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Invalidate the subscription worker in cases where a user loses their superuser status |
Date: | 2024-01-13 11:21:00 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+pMc_9yw=8wMUNs3ck+Y7mwwon7bp3iRUAVRLW6Af1AA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 2:02 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 14:17 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Fair enough. I'll wait till early next week (say till Monday EOD)
> > > to
> > > see if anyone thinks otherwise and push this patch to HEAD after
> > > some
> > > more testing and review.
> > >
> >
> > Pushed.
>
> There was a brief discussion on backporting this here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmob2mYpaUMT7aoFOukYTrpxt-WdgcitJnsjWhufnbDWEeg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> It looks like you opted not to backport it. Was there a reason for
> that? The only risky thing I see there is a change in the Subscription
> structure -- I suppose that could be used by extensions?
>
Right, the same is pointed out by me in an email [1].
> (I am fine with it not being backported, but I was inclined to think it
> should be backported.)
>
I don't mind backporting it if you think so but we need to ensure that
we don't break any extensions.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PavelTurk | 2024-01-13 11:41:09 | Add support for data change delta tables |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-01-13 11:12:55 | Re: A failure in t/038_save_logical_slots_shutdown.pl |