Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process
Date: 2020-03-28 13:49:02
Message-ID: 20200328134902.GA11688@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Jan-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 2020-01-14 07:32, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > - <entry>Replication slot name used by this WAL receiver</entry>
> > + <entry>
> > + Replication slot name used by this WAL receiver. This is only set if a
> > + permanent replication slot is set using <xref
> > + linkend="guc-primary-slot-name"/>. Otherwise, the WAL receiver may use
> > + a temporary replication slot (determined by <xref
> > + linkend="guc-wal-receiver-create-temp-slot"/>), but these are not shown
> > + here.
> > + </entry>
> >
> > Now that the slot name is shown even if it's a temp slot the above
> > documentation changes needs to be changed. Other changes look good to
> > me.
> committed, thanks

Sergei has just proposed a change in semantics: if primary_slot_name is
specified as well as wal_receiver_create_temp_slot, then a temp slot is
used and it uses the specified name, instead of ignoring the temp-slot
option as currently.

Patch is at

(To clarify: the current semantics if both options are set is that an
existing permanent slot is sought with the given name, and an error is
raised if it doesn't exist.)

What do you think? Preliminarly I think the proposed semantics are

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Verite 2020-03-28 14:06:05 Re: proposal \gcsv
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2020-03-28 13:38:27 Re: WAL usage calculation patch