Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()