Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:24:11AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:02 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attach the V70 patch set which addressed above comments and Bertrand's comments in [1]
> > >
> >
> > Since v70-0001 is pushed, rebased and attached v70_2 patches. There
> > are no new changes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Looking at 0001:
>
> + When altering the
> + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-slot-name"><literal>slot_name</literal></link>,
> + the <literal>failover</literal> property value of the named slot may differ from the
> + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link>
> + parameter specified in the subscription. When creating the slot,
> + ensure the slot <literal>failover</literal> property matches the
> + <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link>
> + parameter value of the subscription. Otherwise, the slot on the publisher may
> + not be enabled to be synced to standbys.
>
> Not related to this patch series but while at it shouldn't we also add a few
> words about two_phase too? (I mean ensure the slot property matchs the
> subscription one).
>
> Or would it be better to create a dedicated patch (outside of this thread) for
> the "two_phase" remark? (If so I can take care of it).
>

I think it is better to create a separate patch for two_phase after
this patch gets committed.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.