From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_recvlogical cannot create slots with failover=true |
Date: | 2025-06-29 17:37:05 |
Message-ID: | c7322ad7-5529-46e6-b472-6a053e1f59dc@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.06.25 15:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 17.06.25 20:19, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>>> Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various
>>>> slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as: "
>>>> The --two-phase and --failover options can be specified with
>>>> --create-slot.", it is clear that these are slot options. The previous
>>>> version docs have a description: "The --two-phase can be specified
>>>> with --create-slot to enable decoding of prepared transactions." which
>>>> makes it even more clear that the two-phase is a slot option. The
>>>> options are named similarly in pg_create_logical_replication_slot API
>>>> and during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, so, to some level, there is a
>>>> consistency in naming of these options across all APIs/tools. But,
>>>> their usage in a tool like pg_recvlogical could be perceived
>>>> differently as well, so it is also okay to consider naming them
>>>> differently.
>>>
>>> Also note that we have a new pg_createsubscriber --enable-two-phase.
>>
>> Yeah, I also noticed the precedent.
>>
>>> It would be nice if there was more consistency between similar/related
>>> tools.
>>
>> I've attached the patch. Feedback is very welcome.
>
> This looks fine to me, but I would keep the old name --two-phase as
> well. You could mark it as deprecated. No need to make a hard break.
I have committed your patch with this change.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tender Wang | 2025-06-30 02:38:46 | Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses |
Previous Message | Jiří Kavalík | 2025-06-29 16:05:45 | Re: [PATCH] Support for basic ALTER TABLE progress reporting. |