Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ9_OYZE4BGhFy1B=ZgzqY-Oq6MSnZwQUM5MUq46yQa3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/17 01:46, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> So I think we should do it, but it needs to be configurable, my original
>>> patch added GUC for it, Peter wanted it to be configurable per
>>> subscription. I guess we could add it as another option to the list of
>>> WITH (...) options for CREATE and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.
>>
>> I don't have a terribly well-considered opinion on this point just
>> yet, but my initial hunch is that Peter has the right idea.
>
> Basically, we need to have some way of setting this that makes sense in
> the global scheme of things.  We don't want a situation where "sometimes
> it does this, sometimes it does that".  I'm not set on any specific
> mechanism.

I think we are on the same page.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.
Next
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq