Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION,query cancellations and slot handling)
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION,query cancellations and slot handling) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b54076fd-67d4-cc80-d5a6-ee8db2528e17@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION,query cancellations and slot handling) (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION,query cancellations and slot handling)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/9/17 04:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> What we want to simulate instead is an "auto" dependency of the slot on >>> the subscription. So you can drop the slot separately (subject to other >>> restrictions), and it is dropped automatically when the subscription is >>> dropped. To avoid that, you can disassociate the slot from the >>> subscription, which you have implemented. >>> >>> I think we can therefore do without RESTRICT/CASCADE here. If a slot is >>> associated with the subscription, it should be there when we drop the >>> subscription. Otherwise, the user has to disassociate the slot and take >>> care of it manually. So just keep the "cascade" behavior. >>> >>> Similarly, I wouldn't check first whether the slot exists. If the >>> subscription is associated with the slot, it should be there. >> >> Here is your patch amended for that. > > I am fine with this mechanism as well. Committed. I also wrote a bit of documentation about slot handling for subscriptions, covering some of what was discussed in this thread. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: