From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins |
Date: | 2025-03-01 13:08:31 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LnauTQ7FVjUnOzNS_bwoW9DR4vgpwqXJ=yEKp29hwnWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch! The patch looks mostly good to me.
>
+ /*
+ * Prior to PostgreSQL 18, max_replication_slots was used to set the
+ * number of replication origins. For backward compatibility, -1 indicates
+ * to use the fallback value (max_replication_slots).
+ */
+ if (max_replication_origin_sessions == -1)
Shouldn't we let users use max_replication_origin_sessions for
subscribers? Maintaining this mapping for a long time can create
confusion such that some users will keep using max_replication_slots
for origins, and others will start using
max_replication_origin_sessions. Such a mapping would be useful if we
were doing something like this in back-branches, but doing it in a
major version appears to be more of a maintenance burden.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-03-01 13:13:31 | Re: Licence preamble update |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-03-01 12:37:12 | Re: Adding NetBSD and OpenBSD to Postgres CI |