Re: logical replication restrictions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: logical replication restrictions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KSBGrLKR63iS38Bkvjq6fBCWzbuD6R15kEWdmd8aj3mw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: logical replication restrictions  (Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>)
Responses Re: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions
Re: logical replication restrictions
List pgsql-hackers
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].


--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: row filtering for logical replication
Next
From: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress