Hi,
On 6/29/23 12:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:19 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, I think once the slot is dropped we just have to wait for the slot to
be re-created on the standby according to the new synchronize_slot_names GUC.
Assuming the initial slot "creation" on the standby (coming from the
synchronize_slot_names usage)
is working "correctly" then it should also work "correctly" once the slot is
dropped.
I also think so.
If we agree that a synchronized slot can not/should not be consumed (will
implement this behavior) then
I think the proposed scenario above should make sense, do you agree?
Yeah, I also can't think of a use case for this. So, we can probably
disallow it and document the same. I guess if we came across a use
case for this, we can rethink allowing to consume the changes from
synchronized slots.
Yeah agree, I'll work on a new version that deals with invalidated slot that
way and
that ensures that a synchronized slot can't be consumed (until the standby gets
promoted).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
