| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "mimidatabase(at)gmail(dot)com" <mimidatabase(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Logical Replication upgrade |
| Date: | 2026-04-16 05:46:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaWUuXJYZSMKtiXFT=kFK-sFg+pSwK0MUN-MBEEobkfBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e.,
> their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."?
>
That works.
Then we’d also change:
The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must be
no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false.
To be:
“The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e.,
ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.”
We could make it mirror the above one more closely, but as the former
mentions the old cluster and the later the new one, I kinda like the
different flow, less likely to skim over it.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-04-16 07:09:09 | Re: Logical Replication upgrade |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-04-16 05:13:52 | Re: Logical Replication upgrade |