On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:16 AM Shubham Khanna
<khannashubham1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
-static void check_publisher(const struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
-static char *setup_publisher(struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
+static void check_publisher(const struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo, bool
two_phase);
+static char *setup_publisher(struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo, bool two_phase);
static void check_subscriber(const struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
static void setup_subscriber(struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo,
- const char *consistent_lsn);
+ const char *consistent_lsn, bool two_phase);
static void setup_recovery(const struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo, const
char *datadir,
const char *lsn);
static void drop_primary_replication_slot(struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo,
const char *slotname);
static void drop_failover_replication_slots(struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
static char *create_logical_replication_slot(PGconn *conn,
- struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
+ struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo,
+ bool two_phase);
static void drop_replication_slot(PGconn *conn, struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo,
const char *slot_name);
static void pg_ctl_status(const char *pg_ctl_cmd, int rc);
@@ -98,7 +100,9 @@ static void wait_for_end_recovery(const char *conninfo,
const struct CreateSubscriberOptions *opt);
static void create_publication(PGconn *conn, struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
static void drop_publication(PGconn *conn, struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
-static void create_subscription(PGconn *conn, const struct
LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo);
+static void create_subscription(PGconn *conn,
+ const struct LogicalRepInfo *dbinfo,
+ bool two_phase);
Specifying two_phase as a separate parameter in so many APIs looks
odd. Wouldn't it be better to make it part of LogicalRepInfo as we do
with other parameters of CreateSubscriberOptions?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
