Re: logical replication restrictions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Euler Taveira
Subject Re: logical replication restrictions
Date
Msg-id 73b06a32-56ab-4056-86ff-e307f3c316f1@www.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical replication restrictions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, at 1:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:
No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby servers
recovery_min_apply_delay = '8h'


oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid data loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user has by mistake truncated the table (or deleted some required data) on the publisher, we can always it from the subscriber if we have such a feature.

Having said that, I am not sure if we can call it a restriction. It is more of a TODO kind of thing. It doesn't sound advisable to me to keep growing the current Restrictions page [1].
It is a new feature. pglogical supports it and it is useful for delayed
secondary server and if, for some business reason, you have to delay when data
is available. There might be other use cases but these are the ones I regularly
heard from customers.

BTW, I have a WIP patch for this feature. I didn't have enough time to post it
because it lacks documentation and tests. I'm planning to do it as soon as this
CF ends.


--
Euler Taveira

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeevan Ladhe
Date:
Subject: Re: refactoring basebackup.c
Next
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 14 press release draft