| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |
| Date: | 2017-05-01 18:37:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20170501183725.l3fosbd7omypbxjp@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-05-01 11:31:53 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Doing catalog changes in recovery is frought with problems. Essentially
> > requires starting one worker per database, before allowing access.
>
> Do you think it's worth just covering the case where you get an error,
> such as a duplicate violation? I imagine that that's the much more
> common case.
What exactly are you proposing to do? You mean catching errors in the
creating backend, if it didn't crash? That doesn't strike me as a good
idea, because it'll push down the likelihood of the issue below where
people will see it, but it'll still be likely enough for it to create
problems.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2017-05-01 18:44:53 | Re: BuildFarm client release 4.19 |
| Previous Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2017-05-01 18:34:32 | Re: BuildFarm client release 4.19 |