Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762
Date: 2020-06-03 11:33:14
Message-ID: CADK3HHLWWHUpFZp1XAj3b4hTxZVUyaVJeooePck=UbQhPXTgQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 01:19, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 02:23:50PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > On 2020/06/02 13:24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Still unconvinced as this restriction stands for logical decoding
> >> requiring a database connection but it is not necessarily true now as
> >> physical replication has less restrictions than a logical one.
> >
> > Could you tell me what the benefit for supporting physical replication on
> > logical rep connection is? If it's only for "undocumented"
> > backward-compatibility, IMO it's better to reject such "tricky" set up.
> > But if there are some use cases for that, I'm ok to support that.
>
> Well, I don't really think that we can just break a behavior that
> exists since 9.4 as you could break applications relying on the
> existing behavior, and that's also the point of Vladimir upthread.
>

I don't see this is a valid reason to keep doing something. If it is broken
then fix it.
Clients can deal with the change.

Dave Cramer
https://www.postgres.rocks

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ants Aasma 2020-06-03 12:07:30 Re: what can go in root.crt ?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-03 10:57:40 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions