Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KoxFrEPnsDc9dg3jUwc0Vpu8zPFTvGLoNrnPZQX5i9zw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:21 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:55:51PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:05 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I'm not entirely sure I understand the difference - just whether we add one > > > new column or replace the existing 'conflicting' column? I can see arguments > > > for either. > > > > > > > Agreed. I think the argument against replacing the existing > > 'conflicting' column is that there is a chance that it is being used > > by some monitoring script which I guess shouldn't be a big deal to > > change. So, if we don't see that as a problem, I would prefer to have > > a single column with conflict reason where one of its values indicates > > there is no conflict. > > +1 > Does anyone else have a preference on whether to change the existing column or add a new one? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: