From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Martinez <paulmtz(at)google(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Note effect of max_replication_slots on subscriber side in documentation. |
Date: | 2021-03-01 12:02:06 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+-WYLOiFun09e16=Of6u0gri1VNnWgDS=kXzrdzCDP0g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:47 AM Paul Martinez <paulmtz(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:22 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-config.html
> > >
> >
> > Ah, yep. I added a clause to the end of the sentence to clarify why we're
> > using max_replication_slots here:
> >
> > - The subscriber also requires the max_replication_slots to be set.
> >
> > + The subscriber also requires that max_replication_slots be set to
> > + configure how many replication origins can be tracked.
> >
>
> LGTM.
>
The rebased version attached. As mentioned earlier, I think we can
backpatch this patch as this clarifies the already existing behavior.
Do let me know if you or others think otherwise?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
max_replication_slots_subscriber_doc_v02.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-01 12:06:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-03-01 11:54:49 | Re: Fix DROP TABLESPACE on Windows with ProcSignalBarrier? |