On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:54 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 5:07 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:43 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The second can mislead the user
> > > > for a long period in cases where prepare and commit have a large time
> > > > gap. I feel this will introduce complexity either in the form of code
> > > > or in giving the information to the user.
> > >
> > > Agreed. Both ways introduce complexity so we need to consider the
> > > user-unfriendliness (by not having a proper way to enable failover for
> > > the two_phase-enabled-slot using SQL API) vs. risk (of introducing
> > > complexity).
> > >
> >
> > Right, to me it sounds risky to provide such functionality for SQL API
> > in the back branch.
>
> So do you think it's okay to leave it as a restriction (i.e. there is
> no easy way to enable failover for a two_phase-enabled logical slot
> created by SQL API)? or do you have any better idea for that?
>
I don't have any better ideas. I think it is better to leave it as a
restriction.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
