From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases |
Date: | 2017-05-06 17:38:29 |
Message-ID: | 19119.1494092309@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (Or, wait a minute. That documentation only applies to v10, but we
>> need to be writing this relnote for 9.6 users. What terminology should
>> we be using anyway?)
> Yeah we need to somehow mention that it only affects 3rd party tools
> using logical decoding.
> "The initial snapshot created for a logical decoding slot was
> potentially incorrect. This could allow the 3rd party tools using
> the logical decoding to copy incomplete existing(?) data. This was
> more likely to happen if the source server was busy at the time of
> slot creation, or if two slots were created concurrently."
>> Also, do we need to recommend that people not trust any logical replicas
>> at this point, but recreate them after installing the update?
> Yes, but only if there was preexisting data *and* there was concurrent
> activity on the server when the "replication" was setup.
OK, I can work with this. Thanks for the help!
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-05-06 17:42:09 | Re: "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-06 17:29:26 | Re: Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases |