| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |
| Date: | 2018-07-09 05:18:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20180709051851.GA30202@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:37:57PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I'm not so in favor of the word "reserve" in first place since it
> doesn't seem intuitive for me, but "active" is already used for
> the state where the connection with the peer is made. (The word
> "reserve" may be misused since in the source code "reserve" is
> used as "to reserve WAL", but used as "reserve a slot" in
> documentation.)
That's the term used for now three releases, counting v11 in the pack,
so I would not change that now. The concept of non-initialized slots is
fuzzy as well as it could be attached to some other meta-data.
So, chewing on all that, I would suggest the following error message as
the attached patch and just move on:
+ERROR: cannot move slot not reserving WAL
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| slot-advance-unreserved-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-09 05:28:15 | Re: Postgres 11 release notes |
| Previous Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2018-07-09 05:18:14 | Re: Postgres 11 release notes |