From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zane Duffield <duffieldzane(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber |
Date: | 2025-06-30 03:15:29 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JuC0CwNRhncyhU6T73gRA4obz0BR2atxsT+xgPZkv93w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 8:37 AM Zane Duffield <duffieldzane(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 1:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see the difference you are pointing to. Ideally, the checks should
>> be the same unless there is a specific reason for them to be
>> different, which should be mentioned in the comments. BTW, do you see
>> any problems due to name conflicts while using this tool, or is it a
>> code-level observation?
>
>
> In my case the --subscription and --replication-slot options are used to control the identifiers; the conflict was the user's fault, not the program's.
>
Okay, I find your case a good reason to add such a check, apart from
making the code consistent in terms of these checks. One thing I was
thinking is whether it makes sense to add these checks only in
--dry-run mode because we normally don't expect such conflicts.
Otherwise, each such check adds an additional network round-trip.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniil Davydov | 2025-06-30 03:21:07 | Replace magic numbers with strategy numbers for B-tree indexes |
Previous Message | Zane Duffield | 2025-06-30 03:07:40 | Re: Check for existing replication slot in pg_createsubscriber |