Re: Add an option to skip loading missing publication to avoid logical replication failure

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add an option to skip loading missing publication to avoid logical replication failure
Date: 2025-03-12 10:34:06
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JxQpde3oqdhMgq3KfbELnT0TCMeAKgD6q7B4bH9p2esQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 9:48 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > >> BTW, I am planning to commit this only on HEAD as this is a behavior
> > >> change. Please let me know if you guys think otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > > Somehow this looks like a bug fix which should be backported no? Am I missing something?
> > >
> >
> > We can consider this a bug-fix and backpatch it, but I am afraid that
> > because this is a behavior change, some users may not like it. Also, I
> > don't remember seeing public reports for this behavior; that is
> > probably because it is hard to hit. FYI, we found this via BF
> > failures. So, I thought it would be better to get this field tested
> > via HEAD only at this point in time.
>
> At the moment, I don't have a strong opinion on this. Since no one has
> encountered or reported this issue, it might be the case that it's not
> affecting anyone, and we could simply backpatch without causing any
> dissatisfaction. However, I'm fine with whatever others decide.
>

Sawada-San, others, do you have an opinion on whether to backpatch this change?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chiranmoy.Bhattacharya@fujitsu.com 2025-03-12 10:34:46 Re: [PATCH] SVE popcount support
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2025-03-12 10:26:46 Re: meson vs. llvm bitcode files