| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
| Cc: | "Duran, Danilo" <danilod(at)amazon(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replication slot restart_lsn initialization |
| Date: | 2015-07-07 16:46:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20150707164619.GF10242@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-07 09:42:54 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On a side note, I see that the pg_create_*_replication_slot() functions do
> not behave transactionally; that is, rolling back a transaction does not
> undo the slot creation.
It can't, because otherwise you couldn't run them on a standby.
> Should we prevent these, and corresponding drop functions, from being
> called inside an explicit transaction? PreventTransactionChain() is
> geared towards serving just the utility commands. Do we protect
> against calling such functions in a transaction block, or from user
> functions? How?
We discussed that when slots where introduced. There seems little
benefit in doing so, and it'll make some legitimate use cases harder.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-07 16:50:56 | Re: Repeated pg_upgrade buildfarm failures on binturon |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-07-07 16:44:29 | Re: Missing latex-longtable value |