Re: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation

On 2025/03/19 11:32, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
>
>> It looks like commit 0c013e08cfb introduced a bug that causes "pg_recvlogical
>> --drop-slot"
>> without --dbname to check whether it's connected to a specific database and fail
>> if it's not.
>>
>> This commit was added before 9.5, while pg_recvlogical was introduced in 9.4. On
>> my env,
>> "pg_recvlogical --drop-slot" without --dbname worked as expected in 9.4 but
>> started
>> failing in 9.5 or later.
>>
>> So, I think the proper fix is to avoid raising a fatal error even when not connected
>> to
>> a specific database in --drop-slot action.
>
> +1. I created patch to fix it. 0001 was completely same as you did.

Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me.

I'm considering whether to back-patch these changes to older versions.
Since pg_recvlogical --drop-slot worked without --dbname in 9.4
but started failing unintentionally in 9.5, it could be considered a bug.
However, this behavior has existed for a long time without complaints or
bug reports, and there was no clear documentation stating that
--drop-slot should work without --dbname.

Given this, I think that also we could treat it as not a bug and apply
the change only to the master branch. What do you think should we
back-patch it as a bug fix or apply it only to master?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION