On 6 April 2016 at 15:29, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 10:24:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2016-04-06 10:15:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Well, that's something worth thinking about. I assume that
> > >> pg_logical_slot_get_changes could be executed in a database different
> > >> the one where a change was originated?
> > > You can execute it, but you'll get an error:
> > Oh good. I was afraid we had an unrecognized can o' worms here.
> As posted nearby, there's a hole in that defense; for the messages
> only. Pretty easy to solve though.
My instinct was to put in a test for non-ascii text; even if we can't keep
that test, it has highlighted a hole we wouldn't have spotted for a while,
so I'll call that "good catch" then.
Perhaps easy to solve, but how do we test it is solved?
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services