Re: [HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

[Petr Jelinek]

On 11/05/17 09:27, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:01:00PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 5/7/17 04:21, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
>>> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
>>> item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
>>> v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
>>> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days 
>>> of
>>> this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers 
>>> may
>>> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all 
>>> fixed
>>> well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your 
>>> efforts
>>> toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
>>
>> I think we have a workable patch, but it needs some rebasing.  I hope to
>> have this sorted by Wednesday.
> 
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> 

The patch Peter mentioned was committed.

There is however another open item associated with this thread for which
there is another patch as well.

-- 
  Petr Jelinek  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

[Noah Misch]

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:01:00PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/7/17 04:21, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days 
> > of
> > this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers 
> > may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all 
> > fixed
> > well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your 
> > efforts
> > toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> 
> I think we have a workable patch, but it needs some rebasing.  I hope to
> have this sorted by Wednesday.

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

[Peter Eisentraut]

On 5/7/17 04:21, Noah Misch wrote:
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

I think we have a workable patch, but it needs some rebasing.  I hope to
have this sorted by Wednesday.

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


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

[HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

[Noah Misch]

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 01:42:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Petr Jelinek
>  wrote:
> > I am happy to implement something different, it's quite trivial to
> > change. But I am not going to propose anything different as I can't
> > think of better syntax (if I could I would have done it). I don't like
> > the OFF or FALSE (ie DROP SLOT OFF) any more than what is there now and
> > it also seems to not map very well to action (as opposed to output
> > option as it is in EXPLAIN). It might not be very close to SQL way but
> > that's because SQL way would be do not do any of those default actions
> > unless they are actually asked for (ie NODROP SLOT would be default and
> > DROP SLOT would be the option) but that's IMHO less user friendly.
> 
> So the cases where this "NO" prefixing comes up are:
> 
> 1. CREATE SUBSCRIPTION
...
> 2. ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
...
> 3. DROP SUBSCRIPTION
...
> 4. CREATE PUBLICATION
...
> So it doesn't actually look hard to get rid of all of the NO prefixes.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


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

[HACKERS] Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling)

[Noah Misch]

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:10:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas  writes:
> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Petr Jelinek
> >>  wrote:
> >>> DROP SUBSCRIPTION mysub NODROP SLOT;
> 
> >> I'm pretty uninspired by this choice of syntax.
> 
> Actually, this command has got much worse problems than whether you like
> the spelling of its option: it shouldn't have an option in the first
> place.  I put it to you as an inviolable rule that no object DROP command
> should ever have any options other than RESTRICT/CASCADE and IF EXISTS.
> If it does, then you don't know what to do when the object is recursed
> to by a cascaded drop.
> 
> It's possible that we could allow exceptions to this rule for object types
> that can never have any dependencies.  But a subscription doesn't qualify
> --- it's got an owner, so DROP OWNED BY already poses this problem.  Looks
> to me like it's got a dependency on a database, too.  (BTW, if
> subscriptions are per-database, why is pg_subscription a shared catalog?
> There were some pretty schizophrenic decisions here.)
> 
> So ISTM we need to get rid of the above-depicted syntax.  We could instead
> have what-to-do-with-the-slot as a property of the subscription,
> established at CREATE SUBSCRIPTION and possibly changed later by ALTER
> SUBSCRIPTION.  Not quite sure what to call the option, maybe something
> based on the concept of the subscription "owning" the slot.
> 
> I think this is a must-fix issue, and will put it on the open items
> list.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


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