On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:19 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, February 1, 2024 12:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 8:15 AM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > While working on another patch I noticed a new NOTICE message: > > > > > > NOTICE: changed the failover state of replication slot "foo" on > > > publisher to > > false > > > > > > I wasn't paying much attention to this thread then I start reading the 2 > > > patches that was recently committed. The message above surprises me > > because > > > pg_createsubscriber starts to emit this message. The reason is that it > > > doesn't > > > create the replication slot during the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION. Instead, it > > creates > > > the replication slot with failover = false and no such option is informed > > > during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION which means it uses the default value (failover > > = > > > false). I expect that I don't see any message because it is *not* > > > changing the > > > behavior. I was wrong. It doesn't check the failover state on publisher, > > > it > > > just executes walrcv_alter_slot() and emits a message. > > > > > > IMO if we are changing an outstanding property on node A from node B, > > node B > > > already knows (or might know) about that behavior change (because it is > > sending > > > the command), however, node A doesn't (unless log_replication_commands > > = on -- > > > it is not the default). > > > > > > Do we really need this message as NOTICE? > > > > > > > The reason for adding this NOTICE was to keep it similar to other > > Notice messages in these commands like create/drop slot. However, here > > the difference is we may not have altered the slot as the property is > > already the same as we want to set on the publisher. So, I am not sure > > whether we should follow the existing behavior or just get rid of it. > > And then do we remove similar NOTICE in AlterSubscription() as well? > > Normally, I think NOTICE intends to let users know if we did anything > > with slots while executing subscription commands. Does anyone else > > have an opinion on this point? > > > > A related point, I think we can avoid setting the 'failover' property > > in ReplicationSlotAlter() if it is not changed, the advantage is we > > will avoid saving slots. OTOH, this won't be a frequent operation so > > we can leave it as it is as well. > > Here is a patch to remove the NOTICE and improve the ReplicationSlotAlter. > The patch also includes few cleanups based on Peter's feedback. >
Thanks for the patch. Pushed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
