On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:22:24AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> +1 for option 2 as it sounds logical to me and consistent with ALTER
> SUBSCRIPTION. BTW, IIUC, you are referring to: "When altering the
> slot_name, the failover and two_phase property values of the named
> slot may differ from the counterpart failover and two_phase parameters
> specified in the subscription. When creating the slot, ensure the slot
> properties failover and two_phase match their counterpart parameters
> of the subscription." in docs [1], right?
FWIW, I'd also favor option 2, mostly on consistency ground as it
would offer a better user-experience. On top of that, you're saying
that may lead to some simplifications in the CREATE path. Without a
patch, it's hard to tell, though.
As far as I can see, this is not tracked as an open item and it should
be. So I have added one.
--
Michael