On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:24:11AM +0530, shveta malik wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:02 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > Attach the V70 patch set which addressed above comments and Bertrand's > > > comments in [1] > > > > > > > Since v70-0001 is pushed, rebased and attached v70_2 patches. There > > are no new changes. > > Thanks! > > Looking at 0001: > > + When altering the > + <link > linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-slot-name"><literal>slot_name</literal></link>, > + the <literal>failover</literal> property value of the named slot may > differ from the > + <link > linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link> > + parameter specified in the subscription. When creating the slot, > + ensure the slot <literal>failover</literal> property matches the > + <link > linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-failover"><literal>failover</literal></link> > + parameter value of the subscription. Otherwise, the slot on the > publisher may > + not be enabled to be synced to standbys. > > Not related to this patch series but while at it shouldn't we also add a few > words about two_phase too? (I mean ensure the slot property matchs the > subscription one). > > Or would it be better to create a dedicated patch (outside of this thread) for > the "two_phase" remark? (If so I can take care of it). >
I think it is better to create a separate patch for two_phase after this patch gets committed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
