On 2017-09-01 23:37:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 8/31/17 08:19, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I think that, in the end, covered all the comments? > > > I didn't see any explanation of what this would actually be useful for. > > I suppose you could skip over some changes you don't want replicated, > > but how do you find to what position to skip? > > Um ... I can see how you might expect to skip some events in a logical > replication stream and have a chance of things not being utterly broken. > But how can that work for physical replication? Missed updates are > normally spelled "unrecoverable data corruption" at that level.
Consider e.g. a standby that follows master, but isn't a target for a failover. It can make a fair bit of sense to script things so that there's also a slot on the standby that's marked to be the primary in disaster cases. For that you might want to forward the slot on a regular basis. I don't quite see how you'd get corruption from a physical slot being forwarded? I mean you surely can get into the situation that there's missing WAL from wherever a standby is receiving its WAL, but that'll "just" break replication. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
