At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:42:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in <8c7afb37-be73-c6bd-80bc-e87522f04...@2ndquadrant.com> > On 06/04/17 16:44, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >>> I prefer subscription option than GUC. Something like following. > >>> > >>> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION s1 CONNECTION 'blah' > >>> PUBLICATION p1 WITH (noreconnect = true); > >>> > >>> Stored in pg_subscription? > > I don't think that's a very good solution, you'd lose replication on > every network glitch, upstream server restart, etc.
Yes, you're right. This would work if apply worker distinguishes permanent error. But it is overkill so far. > > I've added this as an open item, and sent a patch for this. > > > > I am not exactly sure what's the open item from this thread. To use the > wal_retrieve_interval to limit table sync restarts? It's not me. I also don't think this critical. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
