From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and publication/subscription problem |
Date: | 2021-11-29 12:49:21 |
Message-ID: | CAB-JLwbZqMkj+9kKoBXcuQ01GvHHLjWv9o=UbbMSthYNHf7b6A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry, I didn´t explain exactly what I was doing, I just wrote "This
replication is a auditing database" on my second email.
Atenciosamente,
Em seg., 29 de nov. de 2021 às 09:20, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:04 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> >>
> >> On thinking about this point again, it is not clear to me why that
> >> would matter for this particular use case? Basically, when you create
> >> a new subscription, it should copy the entire existing data from the
> >> table directly and then will decode changes from WAL. So, I think in
> >> your case all the changes between pg_upgrade and now should be
> >> directly copied from tables, so probably older WAL won't be required.
> >
> >
> > Maybe you did not understand
> >
>
> Yeah, because some information like trigger functions was not there in
> your previous emails.
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2021-11-29 12:49:24 | Lots of memory allocated when reassigning Large Objects |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-29 12:47:45 | Re: Rationalizing declarations of src/common/ variables |