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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Function to move the position of a replication slot
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRykF03uk-3PxDBYQ75awn5Eki=sVdhOayxBqQ74LcCSw@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  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-05 11:36:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> > PFA an updated and rebased patch.
>> >
>> > Rebased. Now named pg_advance_replication_slot. ERROR on logical slots.
>> > Forward only.
>> >
>> > I think that, in the end, covered all the comments?
>>
>> +   if (backwards)
>> +       ereport(WARNING,
>> +               (errmsg("Not moving replication slot backwards!")));
>> Shouldn't this be an ERROR, mentioning the current position of the slot?
>>
>> +        ereport(ERROR,
>> +                (errmsg("Only physical replication slots can be advanced.")));
>> ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED, no?
>
> Seither of these seem to follow the message guidelines.

True as well, and the patch did not get an update in two months to
reflect that. So I am marking it as returned with feedback.
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification