On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 11:54 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 5:07 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 3:43 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The second can mislead the user > > > > for a long period in cases where prepare and commit have a large time > > > > gap. I feel this will introduce complexity either in the form of code > > > > or in giving the information to the user. > > > > > > Agreed. Both ways introduce complexity so we need to consider the > > > user-unfriendliness (by not having a proper way to enable failover for > > > the two_phase-enabled-slot using SQL API) vs. risk (of introducing > > > complexity). > > > > > > > Right, to me it sounds risky to provide such functionality for SQL API > > in the back branch. > > So do you think it's okay to leave it as a restriction (i.e. there is > no easy way to enable failover for a two_phase-enabled logical slot > created by SQL API)? or do you have any better idea for that? >
I don't have any better ideas. I think it is better to leave it as a restriction. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
