Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up
Date: 2026-11-08 16:06:40
Message-ID: 2114972.1794154000@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 02:47:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> + Avoid resetting a replication
> + subscription's <literal>two_phase</literal> state to pending if it
> + is already enabled (Zhijie Hou)

> We should also mention that:

> This changes behavior when slot_name is altered together with SET
> (two_phase = true) on an ENABLED subscription. Previously the state was
> reset to PENDING and the apply worker enabled two_phase on the replacement
> slot. Now the state stays ENABLED and the apply worker does not touch the
> replacement slot's two_phase property.

> It's in the commit message and was added to ensure it's in the release note,
> see [1].

Hmph. I read that and I was like "so what?". Why would users need
to know that? How likely is it that anyone would issue such a
combined command in the first place?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2026-11-08 16:28:06 Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-11-08 16:04:33 Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up