| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |
| Date: | 2017-09-02 03:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11042.1504323427@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/31/17 08:19, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I think that, in the end, covered all the comments?
> I didn't see any explanation of what this would actually be useful for.
> I suppose you could skip over some changes you don't want replicated,
> but how do you find to what position to skip?
Um ... I can see how you might expect to skip some events in a logical
replication stream and have a chance of things not being utterly broken.
But how can that work for physical replication? Missed updates are
normally spelled "unrecoverable data corruption" at that level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-02 03:44:48 | Re: Secondary index access optimizations |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-02 03:30:12 | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |