Re: Draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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