Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
Date: 2023-12-26 08:50:00
Message-ID: ZYqTuNUANEVpdF55@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 05:23:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 08:44:44AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Does anyone else have a preference on whether to change the existing
> > column or add a new one?
>
> Just to be clear here, I'd vote for replacing the existing boolean
> with a text.

Same here, I'd vote to avoid 2 columns having the same "meaning".

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ywgrit 2023-12-26 09:25:05 Re: planner chooses incremental but not the best one
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-12-26 08:49:04 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby