Re: Bug in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER / ... CONNECTION with broken old server

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:49 PM Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 2:47 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 11:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 8:42 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2026-07-09 at 12:47 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > That sounds like an appropriate solution or we can use (connect =
> > > > > false) option as well a way to indicate NOCONNECT.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't have a separate state in the catalog, so DROP SUBSCRIPTION
> > > > doesn't know that it was specified.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was imagining doing something what CREATE SUBSCRIPTION doc describes
> > > for this option: "Specifies whether the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION command
> > > should connect to the publisher at all.". I mean some sort of WITH
> > > (connect = false) but on re-thinking, for DROP it is better to use a
> > > clause like NOCONNECT instead of providing options. Anyway, we can
> > > brainstorm on the exact syntax in a separate thread for this work.
> > >
> > > > > Yeah, we can do this but if we want to change this behaviour in the
> > > > > next version, isn't it better to tweak the doc wording as:"After
> > > > > that,
> > > > > DROP SUBSCRIPTION will not attempt to drop the subscription's own
> > > > > replication slot. It may still connect to the publisher to drop
> > > > > internally-created table synchronization slots if some table
> > > > > synchronization was left unfinished; if the publisher is unreachable,
> > > > > those slots (and the main slot, if it still exists) must be dropped
> > > > > manually.".
> > > >
> > > > Right, we can make the documentation match the code instead of making
> > > > the code match the documentation. I don't have a strong opinion which
> > > > way to go. But the wording above is fine with me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough. So, I'll commit this to HEAD and backbaptch till PG14.
> > >
> >
> > Here are patches for versions HEAD-to-17 and 16-to-14. Unless there
> > are any comments or suggestions, I'll push these tomorrow.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patches. I verified both on their respective branches
> (master through PG14).
> The patches apply cleanly, and the doc builds successfully on all branches.
>

Pushed. Sorry, forgot to add your name as reviewer.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.