Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ6L3ytXeOVhsTxmRAGWDNvo_ev_Umk3gimjz=q4uTGvQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I think we should constrain the API to only allow later LSNs than
> currently in the slot, rather than arbitrary ones. That's why I was
> thinking of "forward".  I'm not convinced it's a good / safe idea to
> allow arbitrary values to be set.

Maybe I shouldn't play the devil's advocate here, but isn't a feature
like this by definition only for people who Know What They Are Doing?
If so, why not let them back the slot up?  I'm sure that will work out
just fine.  They Know What They Are Doing.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] expanding inheritance in partition bound order
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken