Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com, jdnelson(at)dyn(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?
Date: 2017-09-04 08:17:19
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSPf0qkq=DhSO-tAM9++LSA2aEYSVJ3oY_EdUdb=jKi1w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I've not read through the thread, but this seems like the wrong approach
> to me. The receiving side should use a correct value, instead of putting
> this complexity on the sender's side.

Yes I agree with that. The current patch gives me a bad feeling to be
honest with the way it does things..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Piotr S 2017-09-04 09:00:42 pg_dump and pg_restore on inherited tables problem
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-09-04 07:04:34 Re: [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Berg 2017-09-04 08:22:12 Re: initdb failure on Debian sid/mips64el in EventTriggerEndCompleteQuery
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-09-04 08:02:12 Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE