On Thursday, February 1, 2024 12:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 8:15 AM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, at 10:17 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > > Attach the V72-0001 which addressed above comments, other patches will > be > > rebased and posted after pushing first patch. Thanks Shveta for helping > address > > the comments. > > > > > > While working on another patch I noticed a new NOTICE message: > > > > NOTICE: changed the failover state of replication slot "foo" on publisher > > to > false > > > > I wasn't paying much attention to this thread then I start reading the 2 > > patches that was recently committed. The message above surprises me > because > > pg_createsubscriber starts to emit this message. The reason is that it > > doesn't > > create the replication slot during the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION. Instead, it > creates > > the replication slot with failover = false and no such option is informed > > during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION which means it uses the default value (failover > = > > false). I expect that I don't see any message because it is *not* changing > > the > > behavior. I was wrong. It doesn't check the failover state on publisher, it > > just executes walrcv_alter_slot() and emits a message. > > > > IMO if we are changing an outstanding property on node A from node B, > node B > > already knows (or might know) about that behavior change (because it is > sending > > the command), however, node A doesn't (unless log_replication_commands > = on -- > > it is not the default). > > > > Do we really need this message as NOTICE? > > > > The reason for adding this NOTICE was to keep it similar to other > Notice messages in these commands like create/drop slot. However, here > the difference is we may not have altered the slot as the property is > already the same as we want to set on the publisher. So, I am not sure > whether we should follow the existing behavior or just get rid of it. > And then do we remove similar NOTICE in AlterSubscription() as well? > Normally, I think NOTICE intends to let users know if we did anything > with slots while executing subscription commands. Does anyone else > have an opinion on this point? > > A related point, I think we can avoid setting the 'failover' property > in ReplicationSlotAlter() if it is not changed, the advantage is we > will avoid saving slots. OTOH, this won't be a frequent operation so > we can leave it as it is as well.
Here is a patch to remove the NOTICE and improve the ReplicationSlotAlter. The patch also includes few cleanups based on Peter's feedback. Best Regards, Hou zj
v2-0001-clean-up-for-776621a5.patch
Description: v2-0001-clean-up-for-776621a5.patch