Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 30436.1502921685@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot
Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-08-16 17:06:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> If I understand what this is meant to do, maybe better >> pg_move_replication_slot_lsn() or pg_change_replication_slot_lsn() ? >> The point being that you're adjusting the LSN pointer contained >> in the slot, which is distinct from the slot itself. > I think we should constrain the API to only allow later LSNs than > currently in the slot, rather than arbitrary ones. That's why I was > thinking of "forward". I'm not convinced it's a good / safe idea to > allow arbitrary values to be set. +1 for constraining it like that, but I don't think that's an argument against using "move" or "change" as the verb. I don't like "forward" because that's not the right word. The only verb senses of "forward" in my Mac's dictionary are "send a message on to a further destination" and "help to advance or promote" (the latter usage is pretty obscure IMO). Neither one seems applicable here. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: