From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Using failover slots for PG-non_PG logical replication |
Date: | 2025-07-10 03:19:07 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LZP0imu5umPEzdkLKubJEnGFsGy5UTjjr=hDHMtJZ=dw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 6:50 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 8:30 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have split your top up patch into 2 - one related to the document
> > > change being the subject of this thread and the other for fixing the
> > > query. Committer may squash the patch, if they think so.
> > >
> >
> > The changes look good to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Looks like Amit has already committed it. I had created a CF entry
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5904/ to track this. I will
> mark it as committed now.
>
Thanks.
> Amit,
> While reviewing the patches again, I felt that the second sentence in
> that section also needs a bit of clarification. Here's patch with that
> change. Please feel free to reject it or apply it.
>
The additional part: ""+ or when creating replication slots
directly" you mentioned could be considered to be added. But I see
that is already explained in the link mentioned in the doc, see [1].
So, I suggest we leave this part of docs as it is.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florents Tselai | 2025-07-10 03:25:29 | Re: encode/decode support for base64url |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-07-10 03:05:25 | Re: Why our Valgrind reports suck |