On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:33 AM, vignesh C wrote: > If we commit this we might not be able to change the way the option > behaves once the customers starts using it. How about removing these > options in the first version and adding it in the next version after > more discussion.
We don't need to redesign this one if we want to add a format string in a next version. A long time ago, pg_dump started to accept pattern for tables without breaking or deprecating the -t option. If you have 100 databases and you don't want to specify the options or use a script to generate it for you, you also have the option to let pg_createsubscriber generate the object names for you. Per my experience, it will be a rare case. > Currently dry-run will do the check and might fail on identifying a > few failures like after checking subscriber configurations. Then the > user will have to correct the configuration and re-run then fix the > next set of failures. Whereas the suggest-config will display all the > optimal configuration for both the primary and the standby in a single > shot. This is not a must in the first version, it can be done as a > subsequent enhancement. Do you meant publisher, right? Per order, check_subscriber is done before check_publisher and it checks all settings on the subscriber before exiting. In v30, I changed the way it provides the required settings. In a previous version, it fails when it found a wrong setting; the current version, check all settings from that server before providing a suitable error. pg_createsubscriber: checking settings on publisher pg_createsubscriber: primary has replication slot "physical_slot" pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires wal_level >= logical pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires 2 replication slots, but only 0 remain pg_createsubscriber: hint: Consider increasing max_replication_slots to at least 3. pg_createsubscriber: error: publisher requires 2 wal sender processes, but only 0 remain pg_createsubscriber: hint: Consider increasing max_wal_senders to at least 3. If you have such an error, you will fix them all and rerun using dry run mode again to verify everything is ok. I don't have a strong preference about it. It can be changed easily (unifying the check functions or providing a return for each of the check functions). -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
