RE: pg_createsubscriber does not check output_plugin_libraries

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Chao Li' <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: pg_createsubscriber does not check output_plugin_libraries
Date: 2026-09-16 06:34:31
Message-ID: TYRPR01MB1284515BDA34A0C3A45E4BA20F5B92@TYRPR01MB12845.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Chao,

> That’s a fair point. The distinction I had in mind is that this patch explicitly adds a
> check for output_plugin_libraries to make --dry-run more useful. But when the
> caller cannot read that setting, pg_createsubscriber simply does not have enough
> information to perform the check. Would it make sense to print a warning in that
> case, rather than silently letting --dry-run succeed?

Hmm. IIUC there several three options;
1) raise WARNING, which is visible by default
2) raise INFO/DEBUG, which is visible with -v option
3) raise nothing.

But not sure which option is the best. Personally 1) might not be a good.
WARNINGs are reported with hints which the user can do. But in this case there
are no workarounds - to request changing a replication user is not suitable.

For now I'm not excited to print something at that time, any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2026-09-16 06:34:49 Re: [PATCH] Release replication slot on error in SQL-callable slot functions
Previous Message Nisha Moond 2026-09-16 06:30:24 Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses