| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow GUC settings in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION CONNECTION to take effect |
| Date: | 2025-11-24 05:54:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQS8BQh22BMfR+h3+zaiaJvQMMr96nXuiRrgdWoshucc_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025, 00:47 Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 3:54 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Before this patch, all user specified options are silently discarded,
>
> The GUC settings in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION were honored up through v14;
> the behavior changed in commit f3d4019da5d, so some might view this
> as a regression.
>
FWIW, I definitely view it as a regression. I used this in citus to make
the logical replication sender of the shard rebalancer use a higher CPU
priority[1]. I had no clue, until now, that that logic got completely
broken in PG15 (which we coincidentally added support for in the same
release).
I'm not entirely sure if it's worth a backpatch. This citus feature
probably isn't the most critical. So if that's the only usecase in the wild
that got broken, then that might be fine. But I at least wanted to share
that others (i.e. me) have used this feature.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2025-11-24 06:03:47 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-11-24 05:53:56 | Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays? |