| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins |
| Date: | 2025-03-12 11:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm3vqW+Zg0CgpOoYsAXdkGJAchSYJ_UJRtph2xbfapZ7kw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 21:21, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Is that maximum active for the whole system, or maximum active per
> session, or maximum active per created origin, or some combination of these?
>
>
> It is a cluster-wide setting. Similar to max_replication_slots. I will make
> sure the GUC description is clear about it. It seems the Replication Progress
> Tracking chapter needs an update to specify this information too.
I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an
agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs
updates and extensive testing, especially considering its impact on
backward compatibility. I'm unsure if this feature can be committed in
the current CommitFest. If you're okay with it, we can move it to the
next CommitFest. However, if you prefer to keep it, we can do our best
to complete it and make a final decision at the end of the CommitFest.
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2025-03-12 11:51:04 | Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-03-12 11:36:23 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |