From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Why ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name='none') requires subscription disabled? |
Date: | 2021-07-16 06:06:14 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Lgie0A5yLyZ51a4gf6utdmXKANxo+-4LY+V8vmVY3Grw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:20 AM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2021 at 18:17, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:43 PM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Please consider review v3 patch. v3-0001 adds slot_name verification in
> parse_subscription_options() and comments for why we need disable subscription
> where set slot_name to NONE.
>
I think we back-patch this bug-fix till v10 where it was introduced
and update the comments only in HEAD. So, accordingly, I moved the
changes into two patches and changed the comments a bit. Can you
please test the first patch in back-branches? I'll also do it
separately.
> v3-0002 comes from Ranier Vilela, it reduce the
> overhead strlen in ReplicationSlotValidateName().
>
I think this patch has nothing to do with this bug-fix, so I suggest
you discuss this in a separate patch. Personally, I don't think it
will help in reducing any overhead but there doesn't appear to be any
harm in changing it as proposed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v4-0001-Don-t-allow-to-set-replication-slot_name-as.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.0 KB |
v4-0002-Update-comments-for-AlterSubscription.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2021-07-16 06:08:24 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-16 06:04:03 | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |