From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |
Date: | 2017-05-09 14:28:02 |
Message-ID: | b54076fd-67d4-cc80-d5a6-ee8db2528e17@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/9/17 04:39, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> What we want to simulate instead is an "auto" dependency of the slot on
>>> the subscription. So you can drop the slot separately (subject to other
>>> restrictions), and it is dropped automatically when the subscription is
>>> dropped. To avoid that, you can disassociate the slot from the
>>> subscription, which you have implemented.
>>>
>>> I think we can therefore do without RESTRICT/CASCADE here. If a slot is
>>> associated with the subscription, it should be there when we drop the
>>> subscription. Otherwise, the user has to disassociate the slot and take
>>> care of it manually. So just keep the "cascade" behavior.
>>>
>>> Similarly, I wouldn't check first whether the slot exists. If the
>>> subscription is associated with the slot, it should be there.
>>
>> Here is your patch amended for that.
>
> I am fine with this mechanism as well.
Committed.
I also wrote a bit of documentation about slot handling for
subscriptions, covering some of what was discussed in this thread.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-09 14:29:16 | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-05-09 14:00:12 | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |