On 2017-03-22 15:59:42 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > >> The parts I think are important for Pg10 are: > > > >> * Ability to create logical slots on replicas > > > > Doesn't this also imply recovery conflicts on DROP DATABASE? > > Not needed until the slot is in use, which is a later patch.
Hm? We need to drop slots, if they can exist / be created, on a standby, and they're on a dropped database. Otherwise we'll reserve resources, while anyone connecting to the slot will likely just receive errors because the database doesn't exist anymore. It's also one of the patches that can quite easily be developed / reviewed, because there really isn't anything complicated about it. Most of the code is already in Craig's patch, it just needs some adjustments. > > Besides, > > allowing to drop all slots using a database upon DROP DATABASE, is a > > useful thing on its own. > > Sure but that's a separate feature unrelated to this patch and we're > running out of time. Hm? The patch implemented it. > >> * Ability to advance (via feedback or via SQL function) - no need to > >> actually decode and call output plugins at al > > > > That pretty much requires decoding, otherwise you really don't know how > > much WAL you have to retain. > > Knowing how much WAL to retain is key. > > Why would decoding tell you how much WAL to retain? Because decoding already has the necessary logic? (You need to retain enough WAL to restart decoding for all in-progress transactions etc). > We tried to implement this automatically from the master, which was > rejected. So the only other way is manually. We need one or the other. I think the current approach is roughly the right way - but that doesn't make the patch ready. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers