Horton

Re: Possible bug in logical replication.

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Arseny Sher <a.sher@postgrespro.ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, konstantin knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-06-21T10:31:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:18:44PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 20/06/18 09:59, Arseny Sher wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>>> It seems to me that we still want to have the slot forwarding finish in
>>> this case even if this is interrupted.  Petr, isn't that the intention
>>> here?
> 
> Well, it seems wasteful to just exit there if we already finished all
> the requested work, also gives some consistency with the coding of
> get/peek_changes. Not very important for the functionality either way.

I like the concept of consistency.

Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
gathered here?  Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
of words and comments you think is most adapted as the primary author of
the feature.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Rewrite comments in replication slot advance implementation

  2. Fix a couple of bugs with replication slot advancing feature

  3. Ability to advance replication slots