On Sun, Nov 8, 2026 at 9:37 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> writes: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 02:47:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > + Avoid resetting a replication > > + subscription's <literal>two_phase</literal> state to pending if it > > + is already enabled (Zhijie Hou) > > > We should also mention that: > > > This changes behavior when slot_name is altered together with SET > > (two_phase = true) on an ENABLED subscription. Previously the state was > > reset to PENDING and the apply worker enabled two_phase on the replacement > > slot. Now the state stays ENABLED and the apply worker does not touch the > > replacement slot's two_phase property. > > > It's in the commit message and was added to ensure it's in the release note, > > see [1]. > > Hmph. I read that and I was like "so what?". Why would users need > to know that? How likely is it that anyone would issue such a > combined command in the first place? >
I agree that it is less likely for users to use such a combination and even if they use I don't think it is a big deal. We can leave mentioning anything about such a combination. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
