RE: pg_createsubscriber does not check output_plugin_libraries

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: pg_createsubscriber does not check output_plugin_libraries
Date: 2026-09-11 09:45:34
Message-ID: OS9PR01MB121490EC15A26175C695E310EF5BE2@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Fujii-san,

> I'm not sure if we have a clear policy on what --dry-run should check.
> Personally, I'd like it to check as many prerequisites as practical.

Yes, same here.

> TBH, the code for checking output_plugin_libraries seems to be getting
> more complicated than I initially expected. But, from my view, it hasn't
> become complicated and difficult enough to justify leaving the check out,
> at least *for now*.

OK, so let's keep working on the patch set. Patches in [1] are still valid.
We can consider again after the patch will be a committable shape.

> > To confirm, is it allowed to add such a verification in back branches?
> > I imagined running something like below after connecting to the publisher.
>
> Adding such verification would be useful, but it looks like an improvement
> rather than a bug fix to me. So, I don't think we can add it to the stable
> branches. Thoughts?

OK, so let's drop the idea for now.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS9PR01MB12149E6DB23FD6B53CCC64403F5B02%40OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yuhang Qiu 2026-09-11 09:56:15 Re: [PATCH] bufmgr: tighten LWLock:BufferMapping on InvalidateBuffer
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-09-11 09:43:15 Re: Race conditions in logical decoding