Re: pg_upgrade and publication/subscription problem

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.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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