Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
От | Isaac Morland |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMsGm5eHWDQ4SHx2k41DvGpA2BqSm7swhPwwRMr6rhWMk054NA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 09:26, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
A conflicting column where NULL indicates no conflict, and other
> values indicate the reason for the conflict, doesn't seem too bad.
>
This is fine too.
I prefer this option. There is precedent for doing it this way, for example in pg_stat_activity.wait_event_type.
The most common test of this field is likely to be "is there a conflict" and it's better to write this as "[fieldname] IS NOT NULL" than to introduce a magic constant. Also, it makes clear to future maintainers that this field has one purpose: saying what type of conflict there is, if any. If we find ourselves wanting to record a new non-conflict status (no idea what that could be: "almost conflict"? "probably conflict soon"?) there would be less temptation to break existing tests for "is there a conflict".
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: