Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot
Date: 2017-11-29 05:48:54
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRykF03uk-3PxDBYQ75awn5Eki=sVdhOayxBqQ74LcCSw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-05 11:36:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> > PFA an updated and rebased patch.
>> >
>> > Rebased. Now named pg_advance_replication_slot. ERROR on logical slots.
>> > Forward only.
>> >
>> > I think that, in the end, covered all the comments?
>>
>> + if (backwards)
>> + ereport(WARNING,
>> + (errmsg("Not moving replication slot backwards!")));
>> Shouldn't this be an ERROR, mentioning the current position of the slot?
>>
>> + ereport(ERROR,
>> + (errmsg("Only physical replication slots can be advanced.")));
>> ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED, no?
>
> Seither of these seem to follow the message guidelines.

True as well, and the patch did not get an update in two months to
reflect that. So I am marking it as returned with feedback.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-29 05:50:41 Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-11-29 05:48:10 Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification