Re: Question about StartLogicalReplication() error path

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Question about StartLogicalReplication() error path
Date: 2021-06-14 17:13:54
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaB7JD30=SGE+8odTEjxAPaPEn=B2oE7k=QA9AYviKRbg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:50 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems that there's not much agreement in a behavior change here. I
> suggest one or more of the following:
>
> 1. change the logical rep protocol docs to match the current behavior
> a. also briefly explain in the docs why it's different from
> physical replication (which does always start at the provided LSN as
> far as I can tell)
>
> 2. Change the comment to add something like "Starting at a different
> LSN than requested might not catch certain kinds of client errors.
> Clients should be careful to check confirmed_flush_lsn if starting at
> the requested LSN is required."
>
> 3. upgrade DEBUG1 message to a WARNING
>
> Can I get agreement on any of the above suggestions?

I'm happy to hear other opinions, but I think I would be inclined to
vote in favor of #1 and/or #2 but against #3.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-06-14 17:18:43 Re: recent failures on lorikeet
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-06-14 17:11:16 Re: Race condition in recovery?