On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:53 AM Paul Martinez <paul...@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For docs only patch, I have few suggestions: > > 1. On page [1], it is not very clear that we are suggesting to set > > max_replication_slots for origins whereas your new doc patch has > > clarified it, can we update the other page as well. > > Sorry, what other page are you referring to? >
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-config.html > > > 2. > > Setting it a lower value than the current > > + number of tracked replication origins (reflected in > > + <link > > linkend="view-pg-replication-origin-status">pg_replication_origin_status</link>, > > + not <link > > linkend="catalog-pg-replication-origin">pg_replication_origin</link>) > > + will prevent the server from starting. > > + </para> > > > > Why can't we just mention pg_replication_origin above? > > > > So this is slightly confusing: > > pg_replication_origin just contains mappings from origin names to oids. > It is regular catalog table and has no limit on its size. Users can also > manually insert rows into this table. > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/catalog-pg-replication-origin.html > > The view showing the in-memory information is actually > pg_replication_origin_status. The number of entries here is what is > actually constrained by the GUC parameter. > Okay, that makes sense. However, I have sent a patch today (see [1]) where I have slightly updated the subscriber-side configuration paragraph. From PG-14 onwards, table synchronization workers also use origins on subscribers, so you might want to adjust. > > > This also brings up a point regarding the naming of the added GUC. > max_replication_origins is cleanest, but has this confusion regarding > pg_replication_origin vs. pg_replication_origin_status. > max_replication_origin_statuses is weird (and long). > max_tracked_replication_origins is a possibility? > or maybe max_replication_origin_states. I guess we can leave adding GUC to some other day as that might require a bit broader acceptance and we are already near to the start of last CF. I think we can still consider it if we few more people share the same opinion as yours. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KkbppndxxRKbaT2sXrLkdPwy44F4pjEZ0EDrVjD9MPjQ%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
