From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: create subscription - improved warning message |
Date: | 2022-10-12 10:52:37 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JLELDfjOazfG3bGb9ESVTO5PyL-sQMLyiXAJ0S1MGqZw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 2:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-Oct-12, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I think it is a good idea to expand the docs for this but note that
> > there are multiple places that use a similar description. For example,
> > see the description slot_name option: "When slot_name is set to NONE,
> > there will be no replication slot associated with the subscription.
> > This can be used if the replication slot will be created later
> > manually. Such subscriptions must also have both enabled and
> > create_slot set to false.". Then, we have a few places in the logical
> > replication docs [1] that talk about creating the slot manually but
> > didn't explain in detail the name or options to use. We might want to
> > write a slightly bigger doc patch so that we can write the description
> > in one place and give reference to the same at other places.
>
> +1
>
Okay, then I think we can commit the last error message patch of Peter
[1] as we have an agreement on the same, and then work on this as a
separate patch. What do you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Guo | 2022-10-12 11:29:58 | Re: Use LIMIT instead of Unique for DISTINCT when all distinct pathkeys are redundant |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2022-10-12 10:46:19 | Re: hash_xlog_split_allocate_page: failed to acquire cleanup lock |