Re: pg_recvlogical cannot create slots with failover=true
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_recvlogical cannot create slots with failover=true |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c7322ad7-5529-46e6-b472-6a053e1f59dc@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_recvlogical cannot create slots with failover=true (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.06.25 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 17.06.25 20:19, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >>>> Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various >>>> slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as: " >>>> The --two-phase and --failover options can be specified with >>>> --create-slot.", it is clear that these are slot options. The previous >>>> version docs have a description: "The --two-phase can be specified >>>> with --create-slot to enable decoding of prepared transactions." which >>>> makes it even more clear that the two-phase is a slot option. The >>>> options are named similarly in pg_create_logical_replication_slot API >>>> and during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, so, to some level, there is a >>>> consistency in naming of these options across all APIs/tools. But, >>>> their usage in a tool like pg_recvlogical could be perceived >>>> differently as well, so it is also okay to consider naming them >>>> differently. >>> >>> Also note that we have a new pg_createsubscriber --enable-two-phase. >> >> Yeah, I also noticed the precedent. >> >>> It would be nice if there was more consistency between similar/related >>> tools. >> >> I've attached the patch. Feedback is very welcome. > > This looks fine to me, but I would keep the old name --two-phase as > well. You could mark it as deprecated. No need to make a hard break. I have committed your patch with this change.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: