On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:33 AM, vignesh C wrote:
If we commit this we might not be able to change the way the option
behaves once the customers starts using it. How about removing these
options in the first version and adding it in the next version after
more discussion.
We don't need to redesign this one if we want to add a format string in a next
version. A long time ago, pg_dump started to accept pattern for tables without
breaking or deprecating the -t option. If you have 100 databases and you don't
want to specify the options or use a script to generate it for you, you also
have the option to let pg_createsubscriber generate the object names for you.
Per my experience, it will be a rare case.
Currently dry-run will do the check and might fail on identifying a
few failures like after checking subscriber configurations. Then the
user will have to correct the configuration and re-run then fix the
next set of failures. Whereas the suggest-config will display all the
optimal configuration for both the primary and the standby in a single
shot. This is not a must in the first version, it can be done as a
subsequent enhancement.
Do you meant publisher, right? Per order, check_subscriber is done before
check_publisher and it checks all settings on the subscriber before exiting. In
v30, I changed the way it provides the required settings. In a previous version,
it fails when it found a wrong setting; the current version, check all settings
from that server before providing a suitable error.
pg_createsubscriber: checking settings on publisher
pg_createsubscriber: primary has replication slot "physical_slot"
pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires wal_level >= logical
pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires 2 replication slots, but only 0 remain
pg_createsubscriber: hint: Consider increasing max_replication_slots to at least 3.
pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires 2 wal sender processes, but only 0 remain
pg_createsubscriber: hint: Consider increasing max_wal_senders to at least 3.
If you have such an error, you will fix them all and rerun using dry run mode
again to verify everything is ok. I don't have a strong preference about it. It
can be changed easily (unifying the check functions or providing a return for
each of the check functions).