| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |
| Date: | 2023-12-21 03:07:56 |
| Message-ID: | ZYOsDArFjEr3FIw0@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 08:20:16AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The invalidation cause is also required by one of the features being
> discussed "Synchronize slots from primary to standby" [1] and there is
> already a thread to discuss the same [2]. As that thread started
> yesterday only, you may not have noticed it. Currently, the proposal
> is to expose it via a function but we can extend it to also display
> via view, feel free to share your opinion on that thread.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/514f6f2f-6833-4539-39f1-96cd1e011f23@enterprisedb.com
> [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uBpr0ym12%2B0mXpjcRFA6N%3DanX%2BYk9aGU4EJhHNu%3DfWykQ%40mail.gmail.com
Ah thanks, missed this one. This cannot use a separate function,
actually, and there is a good reason for that that has not been
mentioned. I'll jump there.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-12-21 03:16:14 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-12-21 02:50:16 | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |