From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Copy function for logical replication slots |
Date: | 2018-06-28 10:10:16 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBLkNCsXc-kXQY3SNfQCgzA7w1fg_H+9HadxBBp6oDxzA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/28/18 08:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> There could be some cases where
>>>> copying a physical slot also makes sense.
>>> I've thought that but I didn't find concrete use case. That's why I
>>> started with only logical slot.
>> Let's imagine the case of a single base backup which is associated to a
>> given replication slot, and that this backup is then used to spawn
>> multiple standbys where each one of them needs a separate slot to
>> consume changes at their pace. If you can copy the slot used in the
>> first backup, then both nodes could consume it. That looks useful to
>> me to make sure that both slots are based a consistent point.
>
Thank you, that sounds useful. I'll update the patch to include physical slots.
> I think this use case of cloning replicas would also be interesting in
> the logical slot case.
>
+1
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 10:37:14 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |
Previous Message | Peter Moser | 2018-06-28 09:37:40 | Re: Unexpected behavior of DROP VIEW/TABLE IF EXISTS |