| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Michael Paquier' <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: ReplicationSlotRelease() crashes when the instance is in the single user mode |
| Date: | 2025-02-18 07:29:51 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB149669EF7D087A588773B7E04F5FA2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Michael,
> Perhaps a very naive question, but is there any point in authorizing
> manipulations of MyReplicationSlot in single-user mode, to begin with?
> With this remark, I would mean to apply a rule to
> ReplicationSlotAcquire(), so as all its callers would know about that.
According to the original thread [1], there was a wide consensus replication-related
operations can be rejected, except the slot removal. I feel this is reasonable.
Currently pg_drop_replication_slot() requires the droping slot can be acquired,
so we cannot reject it in single user mode as-is. Maybe we should revive the 0002
patch in [1] then try to do that. Thought?
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3b2f809f-326c-38dd-7a9e-897f957a4eb1%40enterprisedb.com
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | songjinzhou | 2025-02-18 07:40:35 | Modify an incorrect regression test case in the group by key value elimination function |
| Previous Message | Alena Rybakina | 2025-02-18 07:24:02 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins |