Re: [HACKERS] Subscription code improvements

On 8/4/17 12:02, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> To make ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH being transactional, I prefer
> Petr's proposal. Because it can make ALTER SUBSCRIPTION and DROP
> SUBSCRIPTION stop the table sync workers that are in progress of
> copying data. I'm not sure killing table sync workers in DDL commands
> would be acceptable but since it can free unnecessary slots of logical
> replication workers and replication slots I'd prefer this idea.

OK, I have committed the 0004 patch.

> However, even with this patch there is still an issue that NOTICE
> messages "removed subscription for table public.t1" can be appeared
> even if we rollback ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH command as I mentioned
> on earlier thread. Since I think this behaviour will confuse users who
> check server logs I'd like to deal with it, I don't have a good idea
> though.

Maybe we can just remove those messages?

We don't get messages when we create a subscription about which tables
are part of it.  So why do we need such messages when we refresh a
subscription?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services