At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:42:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<8c7afb37-be73-c6bd-80bc-e87522f0461a@2ndquadrant.com>
> On 06/04/17 16:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> >>> I prefer subscription option than GUC. Something like following.
> >>>
> >>> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION s1 CONNECTION 'blah'
> >>> PUBLICATION p1 WITH (noreconnect = true);
> >>>
> >>> Stored in pg_subscription?
>
> I don't think that's a very good solution, you'd lose replication on
> every network glitch, upstream server restart, etc.
Yes, you're right. This would work if apply worker distinguishes
permanent error. But it is overkill so far.
> > I've added this as an open item, and sent a patch for this.
> >
>
> I am not exactly sure what's the open item from this thread. To use the
> wal_retrieve_interval to limit table sync restarts?
It's not me. I also don't think this critical.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
