On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> At Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:42:37 +0200, Petr Jelinek
> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
>> 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.
Thank you for the comment.
It's not critical but it could be problem. So I thought we should fix
it before the PostgreSQL 10 release. If it's not appropriate as an
open item I'll remove it.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: