On 2020/06/24 23:58, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-24, Fujii Masao wrote:
I think the errcode is a bit bogus considering the new case.
IMO ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE is more appropriate.
Agreed. So I updated the patch so this errcode is used instead.
Patch attached.
LGT
On 2020-Jun-24, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I think the errcode is a bit bogus considering the new case.
> > IMO ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE is more appropriate.
>
> Agreed. So I updated the patch so this errcode is used instead.
> Patch attached.
LGTM.
--
Álvaro Herrera
On 2020/06/24 9:38, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jun-23, Fujii Masao wrote:
If restart_lsn of logical replication slot gets behind more than
max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN, the logical replication
slot would be invalidated and its restart_lsn is reset to an invalid LSN.
If this
On 2020-Jun-23, Fujii Masao wrote:
> If restart_lsn of logical replication slot gets behind more than
> max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN, the logical replication
> slot would be invalidated and its restart_lsn is reset to an invalid LSN.
> If this logical replication slot with an invali
On 2020/06/23 18:42, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:17:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
Hi,
If restart_lsn of logical replication slot gets behind more than
max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN, the logical replication
slot would be invalidated and its restart_lsn is
At Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:17:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> Hi,
>
> If restart_lsn of logical replication slot gets behind more than
> max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN, the logical replication
> slot would be invalidated and its restart_lsn is reset to an invalid
> LSN.
> If this logi
