Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bf589b18-41cc-4d5b-a3c8-19b90c9a9f40@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 11/27/23 1:23 PM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > On Monday, November 27, 2023 8:05 PM Drouvot, Bertrand <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: >> Did not look in details but it looks like there is more to do here as >> this is failing (with v39_2): >> >> " >> postgres@primary: psql replication=database >> psql (17devel) >> Type "help" for help. >> >> postgres=# CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT test_logical20 LOGICAL pgoutput >> FAILOVER; >> ERROR: syntax error > > I think the command you executed is of old syntax style, which was kept for > compatibility with older releases. And I think we can avoid supporting new > option for the old syntax as described in the original thread[1] of commit > 0266e98. So, the "syntax error" is as expected IIUC. > > The new style command is like: > CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT test_logical20 LOGICAL pgoutput (FAILOVER); > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobAczXDRO_Gr2euo_TxgzaH1JxbNxvFx%3DHYvBinefNH8Q%40mail.gmail.com > Oh, I see, thanks for pointing out. Well, not related to that thread but it seems weird to me that the backward compatibility is done at the "option" level then. I think it would make more sense to support all the options if the old syntax is still supported. For example, having postgres=# CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT test_logical2 LOGICAL pgoutput TWO_PHASE; working fine but CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT test_logical3 LOGICAL pgoutput FAILOVER; failing looks weird to me. But that's probably out of this thread's context anyway. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: