| 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.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| 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 |