From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |
Date: | 2017-08-16 22:14:45 |
Message-ID: | 30436.1502921685@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-08-16 17:06:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If I understand what this is meant to do, maybe better
>> pg_move_replication_slot_lsn() or pg_change_replication_slot_lsn() ?
>> The point being that you're adjusting the LSN pointer contained
>> in the slot, which is distinct from the slot itself.
> I think we should constrain the API to only allow later LSNs than
> currently in the slot, rather than arbitrary ones. That's why I was
> thinking of "forward". I'm not convinced it's a good / safe idea to
> allow arbitrary values to be set.
+1 for constraining it like that, but I don't think that's an argument
against using "move" or "change" as the verb. I don't like "forward"
because that's not the right word. The only verb senses of "forward"
in my Mac's dictionary are "send a message on to a further destination"
and "help to advance or promote" (the latter usage is pretty obscure IMO).
Neither one seems applicable here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-08-16 22:15:32 | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-16 22:09:27 | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |