Horton

Re: extensible options syntax for replication parser?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-09-24T18:38:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Flexible options for CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT.

  2. Flexible options for BASE_BACKUP.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:28 PM tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Please refer this scenario where publication on v14RC1  and subscription
> on HEAD (w/patch)
>
> --create a subscription with parameter two_phase=1 on HEAD
>
> postgres=# CREATE SUBSCRIPTION r1015 CONNECTION 'dbname=postgres
> host=localhost port=5454' PUBLICATION p WITH (two_phase=1);
> NOTICE:  created replication slot "r1015" on publisher
> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION
> postgres=#
>
> --check on 14RC1
>
> postgres=# select two_phase from pg_replication_slots where
> slot_name='r105';
>   two_phase
> -----------
>   f
> (1 row)
>
> so are we silently ignoring this parameter as it is not supported on
> v14RC/HEAD ? and if yes then why not we just throw an message like
> ERROR:  unrecognized subscription parameter: "two_phase"

two_phase is new in v15, something you could also find out by checking
the documentation. Now if the patch changes the way two_phase
interacts with older versions, that's a bug in the patch and we should
fix it. But if the same issue exists without the patch then I'm not
sure why you are raising it here rather than on the thread where that
feature was developed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com