Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()at walsender.c:2762

On 2020-Jun-05, Dave Cramer wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:

> > Ouch ... so they made IDENT in the replication grammar be a trigger to
> > enter the regular grammar.  Crazy.  No way to put those worms back in
> > the tin now, I guess.
> 
> Is that documented ?

I don't think it is.

> > It is still my opinion that we should prohibit a logical replication
> > connection from being used to do physical replication.  Horiguchi-san,
> > Sawada-san and Masao-san are all of the same opinion.  Dave Cramer (of
> > the JDBC team) is not opposed to the change -- he says they're just
> > using it because they didn't realize they should be doing differently.
> 
> I think my exact words were
> 
> "I don't see this is a valid reason to keep doing something. If it is
> broken then fix it.
> Clients can deal with the change."
> 
> in response to:
> 
> > Well, I don't really think that we can just break a behavior that
> > exists since 9.4 as you could break applications relying on the
> > existing behavior, and that's also the point of Vladimir upthread.
> 
> Which is different than not being opposed to the change. I don't see this
> as broken, and it's quite possible that some of our users are using
> it.

Apologies for misinterpreting.

> It certainly needs to be documented

I'd rather not.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services