Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: logical changeset generation v4

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v4
Date: 2013-01-29 01:57:32
Message-ID: 20130129015732.GA24238@awork2.anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2013-01-28 12:23:02 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-01-27 12:28:21 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
> > On 13-01-22 11:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I pushed a new rebased version (the xlogreader commit made it annoying
> > >to merge).
> > >
> > >The main improvements are
> > >* way much coherent code internally for intializing logical rep
> > >* explicit control over slots
> > >* options for logical replication
> > 
> > 
> > Exactly what is the syntax for using that.  My reading your changes to
> > repl_gram.y make me think that any of the following should work (but they
> > don't).
> > 
> > START_LOGICAL_REPLICATION 'slon1' 0/0 ('opt1')
> >  ERROR:  syntax error: unexpected character "("
> > 
> > "START_LOGICAL_REPLICATION 'slon1' 0/0 ('opt1' 'val1')
> >  ERROR:  syntax error: unexpected character "("
> > 
> > START_LOGICAL_REPLICATION 'slon1' 0/0 ('opt1','opt2')
> > ERROR:  syntax error: unexpected character "("
> 
> The syntax is right, the grammar (or rather scanner) support is a bit
> botched, will push a new version soon.

Pushed and rebased some minutes ago. I changed the syntax so that slot
names, plugins, and option names are identifiers and behave just as in
normal sql identifier. That means ' need to be changed to ".

The new version is rebased ontop of fklocks, walsender et al, which was
a bit of work but actually makes more comprehensive logging in
heap_update easier. That will come tomorrow.

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2013-01-29 02:29:35
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2013-01-29 00:33:48
Subject: Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group