Re: logical replication restrictions
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: logical replication restrictions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f026292b-c9ee-472e-beaa-d32c5c3a2ced@www.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: logical replication restrictions ("Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Euler Taveira wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby serversrecovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid data loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user has by mistake truncated the table (or deleted some required data) on the publisher, we can always it from the subscriber if we have such a feature.Having said that, I am not sure if we can call it a restriction. It is more of a TODO kind of thing. It doesn't sound advisable to me to keep growing the current Restrictions page [1].It is a new feature. pglogical supports it and it is useful for delayedsecondary server and if, for some business reason, you have to delay when datais available. There might be other use cases but these are the ones I regularlyheard from customers.BTW, I have a WIP patch for this feature. I didn't have enough time to post itbecause it lacks documentation and tests. I'm planning to do it as soon as thisCF ends.
Long time, no patch. Here it is. I will provide documentation in the next
version. I would appreciate some feedback.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: