| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |
| Date: | 2022-03-07 06:20:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PvHFMjQ+B-KDQ2zZtnjgmibSqweA9K4Ajk_ZBPeUxrraQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 5:12 PM kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> > > So, why does the patch use syntax option 1?
>
> IMU it might be useful for the following case.
>
> Assuming that multi-master configuration with node1, node2.
> Node1 has a publication pub1 and a subscription sub2, node2 has pub2 and sub1.
>
> From that situation, please consider that new node node3 is added
> that subscribe some changes from node2.
>
> If the feature is introduced as option1, new publication must be defined in node2.
> If that is introduced as option2, however, maybe pub2 can be reused.
> i.e. multiple declaration of publications can be avoided.
>
Yes. Thanks for the example. I had the same observation in my last post [1]
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-03-07 06:36:31 | Re: wal_compression=zstd |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-03-07 06:14:48 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |