| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
| Date: | 2023-05-11 06:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB5866EEF603F76F34AA5D516CF5749@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Wang,
> I'm not sure if there is any reason to not expose this new option? Do we have
> concerns that users who use this new option by mistake may cause data
> inconsistencies?
>
> BTW, I think that all options of pg_dump (please see the array of long_options
> in the main function of the pg_dump.c file) are currently exposed to the user.
Apart from another database object, --logical-replication-slot-only does not provide
the "perfect" copy. As you might know, some attributes like xmin and restart_lsn
are not copied, it just creates similar replication slots which have same name,
plugin, and options. I think these things may be confused for users.
Moreover, I cannot come up with use-case which DBAs use the option alone.
If there is a good one, I can decide to remove the limitation.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yurii Rashkovskii | 2023-05-11 06:46:30 | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-11 06:26:29 | Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements |