Re: Few observations in replication slots related code

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Few observations in replication slots related code
Date: 2014-06-12 14:38:32
Message-ID: CAA4eK1K2DJ+Yd2mGvH5JF4vXpMTE906LT2Gk=2y9ggsV3d21Ng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2014-06-12 09:15:08 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 6.
> > > elog(ERROR, "cannot handle changeset extraction yet");
> > >
> > > Shouldn't it be better to use logical replication instead
> > > of changeset extraction?
> >
> > Will change.
>
> I don't see that message anywhere in current code?

Right, actually I was reading code from Git History and also
referring latest code, so it seems I have seen that in original
commit and missed to verify it in latest code.

While checking latest code, I got usage of *changeset extraction*
in below comment:

/*

..

*

* This is useful to initialize the cutoff xid after which a new *changeset*

* *extraction* replication slot can start decoding changes.

*

..

*/

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-12 14:48:01 Re: lo_create(oid, bytea) breaks every extant release of libpq
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2014-06-12 13:56:10 Re: postgresql.auto.conf read from wrong directory