Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Force streaming every change in logical decoding
Date: 2022-12-12 12:14:17
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LiDqyjVDg-YxGfMZN85fxjdmz=7Foi9X6ySygD_twCLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 5:16 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> +1 for the idea
>
> >
> > There is potential for lots of developer GUCs for testing/debugging in
> > the area of logical replication but IMO it might be better to keep
> > them all separated. Putting everything into a single
> > 'logical_replication_mode' might cause difficulties later when/if you
> > want combinations of the different modes.
> >
> > For example, instead of
> >
> > logical_replication_mode = XXX/YYY/ZZZ
> >
> > maybe something like below will give more flexibility.
> >
> > logical_replication_dev_XXX = true/false
> > logical_replication_dev_YYY = true/false
> > logical_replication_dev_ZZZ = true/false
> >
>
> Even I agree that usability wise keeping them independent is better.
>

But OTOH, doesn't introducing multiple GUCs (one to allow streaming
each change, another to allow serialization, and a third one to
probably test subscriber-side work) for the purpose of testing, and
debugging logical replication code sound a bit more?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ajin Cherian 2022-12-12 12:20:29 Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-12-12 12:01:01 Re: add \dpS to psql