On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Petr Jelinek
<petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/17 23:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/20/17 10:19, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> Hmm well since this only affects the synchronization of table
>>> states/names, I guess we could just simply do that before we create the
>>> slot as there is no expectancy of consistency between slot and the table
>>> list snapshot.
>>
>> I suppose that wouldn't hurt.
>>
>> Prior to the table sync patch, a missing target relation would just show
>> up as an error later on in the logs. So having the error sooner
>> actually seems like a good change.
>>
>
> Very simple patch to make.
+1 for that.
--
Michael
