On 2014-02-21 08:51:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-02-21 08:16:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I can sympathize with the "too much during init" argument, but I don't > >> > see how moving stuff to the first call would get rid of the problems. If > >> > we fail later it's going to be just as confusing. > >> > >> No, it isn't. If you fail during init the use will expect the slot to > >> be gone. That's the reason for all of this complexity. If you fail > >> on first use, the user will expect the slot to still be there. > > > > The primary case for failing is a plugin that either doesn't exist or > > fails to initialize, or a user aborting the init. It seems odd that a > > created slot fails because of a bad plugin or needs to wait till it > > finds a suitable snapshot record. We could add an intermediary call like > > pg_startup_logical_slot() but that doesn't seem to have much going for > > it? > > Well, we can surely detect a plugin that fails to initialize before > creating the slot on disk, right?
We could detect whether the plugin .so can be loaded and provides the required callbacks, but we can't initialize it. > I'm not sure what "fails to initialize" entails. elog(ERROR, 'hey, the tables I require are missing'); or similar. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
