Re: Using failover slots for PG-non_PG logical replication

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: 2025-07-09 13:19:48
Message-ID: CAExHW5sBeEzP_5Y9tzKdna7W_stnjvuip=5GyE+LRiNFo2ebMA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Some-more-clarifications-for-non-PG-subscri-20250709.patch text/x-patch 2.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nisha Moond 2025-07-09 13:46:37 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-07-09 13:08:51 Re: Improve tab completion for COPY