* Craig Ringer ( wrote:
> On 1 June 2017 at 09:27, Stephen Frost <> wrote:
> > * Craig Ringer ( wrote:
> >> TL;DR: replication origins track LSN without timeline. This is
> >> ambiguous when physical failover is present since XXXXXXXX/XXXXXXXX
> >> can now represent more than one state due to timeline forks with
> >> promotions. Replication origins should track timelines so we can tell
> >> the difference, I propose to patch them accordingly for pg11.
> >
> > Uh, TL;DR, wow?  Why isn't this something which needs to be addressed
> > before PG10 can be released?  I hope I'm missing something that makes
> > the current approach work in PG10, or that there's some reason that this
> > isn't a big deal for PG10, but I'd like a bit of info as to why that's
> > the case, if it is.
> In Pg 10, if you promote a physical replica then logical replication
> falls apart entirely and stops working. So there's no corruption
> hazard because it just ... stops.

I see.

> This only starts becoming an issue once logical replication slots can
> exist on replicas and be maintained to follow the master's slot state.
> Which is incomplete in Pg10 (not exposed to users) but I plan to
> finish getting in for pg11, making this a possible issue to be
> addressed.

Fair enough.  I'm disappointed that we ended up with that as the
solution for PG10, but so be it, the main thing is that we avoid any
corruption risk.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to