From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Simone Gotti <simone(dot)gotti(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix drop replication slot blocking instead of returning error |
Date: | 2017-08-30 00:36:00 |
Message-ID: | CAMsr+YE2z-cHGa6nTMUyZZT2A2P9Jksx6bLfX30-CicboL0JFQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29 August 2017 at 22:02, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-08-29 13:42:05 +0200, Simone Gotti wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi Alvaro,
> >
> > > Simone Gotti wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that in postgres 10beta3, calling pg_drop_replication_slot
> on an
> > > > active slot will block until it's released instead of returning an
> error
> > > > like
> > > > done in pg 9.6. Since this is a change in the previous behavior and
> the docs
> > > > wasn't changed I made a patch to restore the previous behavior.
> > >
> > > Changing that behavior was the entire point of the cited commit.
> >
> > Sorry, I was thinking that the new behavior was needed for internal
> > future functions since the doc wasn't changed.
>
> FWIW, I also don't think it's ok to just change the behaviour
> unconditionally and without a replacement for existing behaviour.
Seems like it just needs a new argument nowait DEFAULT false
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-30 00:36:10 | segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-30 00:33:13 | Re: A design for amcheck heapam verification |