| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 02:41:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YFt4iDZQ8pkKQ+Rd37howXE57rF3O1m+a9S=WZrXvF3qg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 April 2016 at 04:19, Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com> wrote:
> Thank you for the update. I’ve got some rejects when applying the
> 0001-Allow-replication-slots-to-follow-failover.patch after the "Dirty
> replication slots when confirm_lsn is changed” changes. I think it should
> be rebased against the master, (might be the consequence of the "logical
> slots follow the timeline” patch committed).
>
I'll rebase it on top of the new master after timeline following for
logical slots got committed and follow up shortly.
That said, I've marked this patch 'returned with feedback' in the CF. It
should possibly actually be 'rejected' given the discussion on the logical
decoding timeline following thread, which points heavily at a different
approach to solving this problem in 9.7.
That doesn't mean nobody can pick it up if they think it's valuable and
want to run with it, but we're very close to feature freeze now.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2016-04-06 02:56:28 | Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-04-06 02:39:30 | Re: Timeline following for logical slots |