From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state |
Date: | 2023-09-13 04:51:11 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LN37r8c6ggiRZhxYg=XjTzztud0+3JiVkgPb8enfqM3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 2:04 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 16:13 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Do we want to remove
> > that as anyway, we will do that check via walrcv_connect()?
>
> I think we should keep the DDL-time checks in place as a best-effort,
> but not rely on them for security.
>
> > Another point is that if we want to unify such a check at the time of
> > walrcv_connect() then do we need to do it at the time of Alter
> > Subscription? I think it will probably be better to catch the problem
> > early
>
> Agreed. Catching mistakes at DDL time is a better user experience.
>
> > but does removing it from Alter Subscription time and doing it
> > at connect time lead to security hazards?
>
> We'd still be doing the same check, just later, right?
>
Right.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Kukushkin | 2023-09-13 07:21:35 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-09-13 04:20:35 | Re: BUG #18046: stats collection behaviour change is affecting the usability of information. |