| 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
| 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 |