| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |
| Date: | 2017-09-05 02:51:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20170905025148.6tneoeoppxo246qk@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-09-05 11:36:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > PFA an updated and rebased patch.
> >
> > Rebased. Now named pg_advance_replication_slot. ERROR on logical slots.
> > Forward only.
> >
> > I think that, in the end, covered all the comments?
>
> + if (backwards)
> + ereport(WARNING,
> + (errmsg("Not moving replication slot backwards!")));
> Shouldn't this be an ERROR, mentioning the current position of the slot?
>
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errmsg("Only physical replication slots can be advanced.")));
> ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED, no?
Seither of these seem to follow the message guidelines.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-09-05 03:05:01 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-05 02:36:47 | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |