RE: Correction in doc of failover ready steps

On Monday, July 22, 2024 7:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:59 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:46 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have a query in failover-ready doc referring to
> > > pg_subscription_rel. Unlike pg_subscription, pg_subscription_rel
> > > gives results only when connected to the database having the
> > > subscription(s). If we run the concerned query on any other
> > > database, it will give incomplete results i.e. it will give info on
> > > main slots leaving table sync slots (if any).
> > > Thus the failover-ready steps which queries pg_subscription_rel need
> > > to mention that the concerned query needs to be run on the
> > > database(s) that includes the failover enabled subscription(s).
> > > Corrected the doc for the same.
> >
> > On rethinking, since pg_subscription query needs to be run only once
> > on *any* database to get combined results of all main slots while
> > pg_subscription_rel query needs to be run on each database having
> > concerned subscription (and table), does it makes sense to separate
> > the 2 queries instead of having UNION ? Thoughts?
> >
>
> I think so. Let's see if Hou-San or anyone else has better ideas to fetch this
> information.

I also agree that separating the 2 queries makes sense.

Best Regards,
Hou zj