Re: Why ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name='none') requires subscription disabled?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 17:02, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:12 PM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 14:06, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:20 AM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 08 Jul 2021 at 18:17, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:43 PM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Please consider review v3 patch. v3-0001 adds slot_name verification in
>> >> parse_subscription_options() and comments for why we need disable subscription
>> >> where set slot_name to NONE.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think we back-patch this bug-fix till v10 where it was introduced
>> > and update the comments only in HEAD. So, accordingly, I moved the
>> > changes into two patches and changed the comments a bit. Can you
>> > please test the first patch in back-branches? I'll also do it
>> > separately.
>> >
>>
>> I try to back-patch to v10 stable to v14 stable, and attach two new patches:
>> one for PG10 & PG11 stable, and the other is for PG12 to PG14 stable.
>> v4 patch can be applied on HEAD. This modify looks good to me.
>>
>
> The patch you prepared for v14 was not getting applied cleanly, so I
> did the required modifications and then pushed.
>
>> How do we back-patch to back-branches? I try to use cherry-pick, but it doesn't
>> always work (without a doubt, it might be some difference between branches).
>>
>
> Yeah, we need to adjust the patch as per the back-branches code.

Thanks!

--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.