Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> writes:
> Maybe we could shorten the sentence, something like:
> "
> Users issuing ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = ..., two_phase = true)
> must
> ensure that the replacement slot already has two_phase enabled, as the apply
> worker
> no longer enables it automatically.
> "
Huh. That seems like a bug: you asked for two_phase = true and
didn't get it. I'm fine with an implementation restriction that
we won't change the two_phase property of an existing slot, but
shouldn't this command throw an error if what you asked for
doesn't match what the slot can do?
regards, tom lane
