| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Draft back-branch release notes are up |
| Date: | 2026-11-09 15:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2226411.1794237606@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:
> Maybe we could shorten the sentence, something like:
> "
> Users issuing ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = ..., two_phase = true) must
> ensure that the replacement slot already has two_phase enabled, as the apply worker
> no longer enables it automatically.
> "
Huh. That seems like a bug: you asked for two_phase = true and
didn't get it. I'm fine with an implementation restriction that
we won't change the two_phase property of an existing slot, but
shouldn't this command throw an error if what you asked for
doesn't match what the slot can do?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lucas Jeffrey | 2026-11-09 15:20:22 | Re: Postgres fdw: Bug in InitPgFdwOptions initialization can cause an esoteric crash |
| Previous Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2026-11-09 14:27:17 | Re: Reporting WAL replay progress during pre-consistency standby reovery |