Re: logical replication restrictions
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logical replication restrictions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KSBGrLKR63iS38Bkvjq6fBCWzbuD6R15kEWdmd8aj3mw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logical replication restrictions (Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>) |
Ответы |
Re: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions Re: logical replication restrictions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:
No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby serversrecovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'
oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid data loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user has by mistake truncated the table (or deleted some required data) on the publisher, we can always it from the subscriber if we have such a feature.
Having said that, I am not sure if we can call it a restriction. It is more of a TODO kind of thing. It doesn't sound advisable to me to keep growing the current Restrictions page [1].
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: