| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762 |
| Date: | 2020-06-23 01:51:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20200623015140.GG50978@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:02:34PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I still maintain that adding restrictions here is a bad idea. Even
> disregarding the discussion of running normal queries interspersed, it's
> useful to be able to both request WAL and receive logical changes over
> the same connection. E.g. for creating a logical replica by first doing
> a physical base backup (vastly faster), or fetching WAL for decoding
> large transactions onto a standby.
>
> And I just don't see any reasons to disallow it. There's basically no
> reduction in complexity by doing so.
Yeah, I still stand by the same opinion here to do nothing. I suspect
that we have good chances to annoy people and some cases we are
overlooking here, that used to work.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2020-06-23 02:07:23 | Extra target list entries for child partitions in DELETE...USING...RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-06-23 01:43:47 | Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...) |