On 5/8/17 23:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The way this uses RESTRICT and CASCADE appears to be backwards from its
> usual meaning.  Normally, CASCADE when dropping an object that is still
> used by others will cause those other objects to be dropped.  The
> equivalent here would be DROP REPLICATION SLOT + CASCADE would drop the
> subscription.
> What we want to simulate instead is an "auto" dependency of the slot on
> the subscription.  So you can drop the slot separately (subject to other
> restrictions), and it is dropped automatically when the subscription is
> dropped.  To avoid that, you can disassociate the slot from the
> subscription, which you have implemented.
> I think we can therefore do without RESTRICT/CASCADE here.  If a slot is
> associated with the subscription, it should be there when we drop the
> subscription.  Otherwise, the user has to disassociate the slot and take
> care of it manually.  So just keep the "cascade" behavior.
> Similarly, I wouldn't check first whether the slot exists.  If the
> subscription is associated with the slot, it should be there.

Here is your patch amended for that.

Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment: v2-0001-Remove-the-NODROP-SLOT-option-from-DROP-SUBSCRIPT.patch
Description: invalid/octet-stream

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to