On 09/05/17 16:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/9/17 04:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>>> What we want to simulate instead is an "auto" dependency of the slot on >>>> the subscription. So you can drop the slot separately (subject to other >>>> restrictions), and it is dropped automatically when the subscription is >>>> dropped. To avoid that, you can disassociate the slot from the >>>> subscription, which you have implemented. >>>> >>>> I think we can therefore do without RESTRICT/CASCADE here. If a slot is >>>> associated with the subscription, it should be there when we drop the >>>> subscription. Otherwise, the user has to disassociate the slot and take >>>> care of it manually. So just keep the "cascade" behavior. >>>> >>>> Similarly, I wouldn't check first whether the slot exists. If the >>>> subscription is associated with the slot, it should be there. >>> >>> Here is your patch amended for that. >> >> I am fine with this mechanism as well. > > Committed. > > I also wrote a bit of documentation about slot handling for > subscriptions, covering some of what was discussed in this thread. >
Great, thanks. Here is rebased version of the other patch (the interface rework). I also fixed the tab completion there. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Rework-the-options-for-logical-replication-v2.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
