public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Logical Replication upgrade 10+ messages / 4 participants [nested] [flat]
* Logical Replication upgrade @ 2026-04-13 15:06 PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: PG Doc comments form @ 2026-04-13 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected]; +Cc: [email protected] The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication-upgrade.html Description: Hello there, I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in its current wording: All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots whose pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true. The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=true right? So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my understanding. Here is the link (29.13.1): https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-upgrade.html#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR-LOG... Thanks. Regards, ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-15 15:55 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-04-15 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Amit Kapila <[email protected]> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 7:52 AM PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication-upgrade.html > Description: > > Hello there, > > I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in its > current wording: > All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots whose > pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true. > > The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=true right? > So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my > understanding. > > Here is the link (29.13.1): > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-upgrade.html#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR-LOG... > > You are correct. Usage of a double-negative should be avoided as a matter of style, but in this case it actually resolves to an untrue statement. https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/7fdeaf5774d05245e82632e763665ff62db5598e I've copied the committer for this. Removing the "not" is simple enough; though writing in the negative sense, while good for an SQL where clause, does make reading in English more difficult. Would rather say "all slots must be false" rather than "no slots can be true". The next item regarding no persistent slots has the same complaint though it is factually correct as written. Though NULL is a valid value here so maybe the negative phrasing is indeed necessary... David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Amit Kapila @ 2026-04-16 03:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 9:25 PM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 7:52 AM PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication-upgrade.html >> Description: >> >> Hello there, >> >> I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in its >> current wording: >> All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots whose >> pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true. >> >> The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=true right? >> So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my >> understanding. >> >> Here is the link (29.13.1): >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-upgrade.html#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR-LOG... >> > > You are correct. Usage of a double-negative should be avoided as a matter of style, but in this case it actually resolves to an untrue statement. > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/7fdeaf5774d05245e82632e763665ff62db5598e > > I've copied the committer for this. Removing the "not" is simple enough; though writing in the negative sense, > How about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots whose pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-16 03:29 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-04-16 03:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 9:25 PM David G. Johnston > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 7:52 AM PG Doc comments form < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > >> > >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication- > upgrade.html > >> Description: > >> > >> Hello there, > >> > >> I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in its > >> current wording: > >> All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots > whose > >> pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true. > >> > >> The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=true right? > >> So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my > >> understanding. > >> > >> Here is the link (29.13.1): > >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical- > replication-upgrade.html#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR- > LOGICAL-REPLICATION-CLUSTER:~:text=there%20are%20no%20slots% > 20whose%20pg_replication_slots.conflicting%20is%20not%20true > >> > > > > You are correct. Usage of a double-negative should be avoided as a > matter of style, but in this case it actually resolves to an untrue > statement. > > > > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/ > 7fdeaf5774d05245e82632e763665ff62db5598e > > > > I've copied the committer for this. Removing the "not" is simple > enough; though writing in the negative sense, > > > > How about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there > are no slots whose pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > That is the same backwards outcome. You only replaced “not true” with “false” (same meaning) but didn’t change the “no slots” phrasing. You can write either? No slots are true (conflicting) All slots are false (not conflicting) I prefer the second, and the fact your attempted fix didn’t actually fix things suggests that rephrasing both of these to “all slots are” is better. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Amit Kapila @ 2026-04-16 05:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:59 AM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 9:25 PM David G. Johnston >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 7:52 AM PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> >> >> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication-upgrade.html >> >> Description: >> >> >> >> Hello there, >> >> >> >> I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in its >> >> current wording: >> >> All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots whose >> >> pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true. >> >> >> >> The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=true right? >> >> So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my >> >> understanding. >> >> >> >> Here is the link (29.13.1): >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-upgrade.html#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR-LOG... >> >> >> > >> > You are correct. Usage of a double-negative should be avoided as a matter of style, but in this case it actually resolves to an untrue statement. >> > >> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/7fdeaf5774d05245e82632e763665ff62db5598e >> > >> > I've copied the committer for this. Removing the "not" is simple enough; though writing in the negative sense, >> > >> >> How about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there >> are no slots whose pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > > > That is the same backwards outcome. You only replaced “not true” with “false” (same meaning) but didn’t change the “no slots” phrasing. > Right, I got confused. > You can write either? > > No slots are true (conflicting) > All slots are false (not conflicting) > > I prefer the second, and the fact your attempted fix didn’t actually fix things suggests that rephrasing both of these to “all slots are” is better. > So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-16 05:46 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 07:09 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade vignesh C <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 03:54 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-04-16 05:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., > their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > That works. Then we’d also change: The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must be no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false. To be: “The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e., ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.” We could make it mirror the above one more closely, but as the former mentions the old cluster and the later the new one, I kinda like the different flow, less likely to skim over it. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-16 07:09 ` vignesh C <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: vignesh C @ 2026-04-16 07:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 at 11:16, David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., >> their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > > > That works. > > Then we’d also change: > > The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must be no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false. > > To be: > > “The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e., ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.” +1 for this, the attached patch has the changes for the same. Regards, Vignesh Attachments: [application/octet-stream] 0001-Improve-slot-prerequisite-wording-for-logical-replic.patch (2.1K, ../../CALDaNm2_XoL7hsn6CMDC6hCpcOaLCKk_n8y1WnKS_-uJYLGwtQ@mail.gmail.com/2-0001-Improve-slot-prerequisite-wording-for-logical-replic.patch) download | inline diff: From 8ab1dc768d74f264b8f5cd025fcb0ce84ced2e69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vignesh C <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:36:34 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] Improve slot prerequisite wording for logical replication upgrade Rephrase the logical slot prerequisite checks in the upgrade documentation to make the conditions easier to read. The previous wording used negative constructions such as "there are no slots whose ... is not true" and "must not have permanent logical slots", which made the requirements harder to parse quickly. Rewrite these checks using direct positive phrasing: all slots on the old cluster must have conflicting = false, and the new cluster may only contain temporary logical slots where temporary = true. This improves readability while keeping the meaning unchanged. --- doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml index 23b268273b9..b112cfde7e7 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml @@ -2785,18 +2785,17 @@ CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16395" during "INSER </listitem> <listitem> <para> - All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots - whose + All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., their <link linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots</link>.<structfield>conflicting</structfield> - is not <literal>true</literal>. + is <literal>false</literal>. </para> </listitem> <listitem> <para> - The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., - there must be no slots where + The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e., + ones where <link linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots</link>.<structfield>temporary</structfield> - is <literal>false</literal>. + is <literal>true</literal>. </para> </listitem> </itemizedlist> -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-17 03:54 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 04:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 05:32 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade vignesh C <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Amit Kapila @ 2026-04-17 03:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 11:16 AM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., >> their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > > > That works. > > Then we’d also change: > > The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must be no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false. > > To be: > > “The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e., ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.” > What you wrote is correct but it is better to keep what is not allowed for this case. Based on that, how about the following: "The new cluster must not have any permanent logical slots; i.e., any existing logical slots must have pg_replication_slots.temporary set to true." -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 03:54 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-17 04:29 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2026-04-17 04:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:55 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 11:16 AM David G. Johnston > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., > >> their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > > > > > > That works. > > > > Then we’d also change: > > > > The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must > be no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false. > > > > To be: > > > > “The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, > i.e., ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.” > > > > What you wrote is correct but it is better to keep what is not allowed > for this case. Based on that, how about the following: > "The new cluster must not have any permanent logical slots; i.e., any > existing logical slots must have pg_replication_slots.temporary set to > true." > > I was like 51/49 for flipping that around, so sure. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Logical Replication upgrade 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` Logical Replication upgrade David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 03:54 ` Re: Logical Replication upgrade Amit Kapila <[email protected]> @ 2026-04-17 05:32 ` vignesh C <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: vignesh C @ 2026-04-17 05:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>; +Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 at 09:25, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 11:16 AM David G. Johnston > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., > >> their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."? > > > > > > That works. > > > > Then we’d also change: > > > > The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., there must be no slots where pg_replication_slots.temporary is false. > > > > To be: > > > > “The new cluster is only permitted to have temporary logical slots, i.e., ones where pg_replication_slots.temporary is true.” > > > > What you wrote is correct but it is better to keep what is not allowed > for this case. Based on that, how about the following: > "The new cluster must not have any permanent logical slots; i.e., any > existing logical slots must have pg_replication_slots.temporary set to > true." Your version seems better, the attached v2 version patch has the changes for the same. Regards, Vignesh Attachments: [application/octet-stream] v2-0001-Improve-the-wording-of-logical-slot-prerequisites.patch (2.3K, ../../CALDaNm1VOrMXHHPxPmaaBvLN43L2=E5d=KLLUSdiMn8SOfj1VQ@mail.gmail.com/2-v2-0001-Improve-the-wording-of-logical-slot-prerequisites.patch) download | inline diff: From d891802fd8fae9daa544c5229bf1674f131e5421 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vignesh C <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:36:34 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2] Improve the wording of logical slot prerequisites to make the conditions easier to understand. Replace the previous negative phrasing such as "there are no slots whose ... is not true" with a direct expression that all slots must have conflicting = false. Similarly, reword the requirement on the new cluster to state that it must not have any permanent logical slots, clarifying that any existing logical slots must have temporary set to true. These changes improve readability without altering the meaning. Author: Vignesh C <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David G. Johnston <[email protected]> Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/177609278737.403059.14174275013090471947%40wrigleys.postgresql.org --- doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml index 23b268273b9..598e23ad4f5 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml @@ -2785,18 +2785,17 @@ CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16395" during "INSER </listitem> <listitem> <para> - All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots - whose + All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., their <link linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots</link>.<structfield>conflicting</structfield> - is not <literal>true</literal>. + is <literal>false</literal>. </para> </listitem> <listitem> <para> - The new cluster must not have permanent logical slots, i.e., - there must be no slots where + The new cluster must not have any permanent logical slots; i.e., any + existing logical slots must have <link linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots</link>.<structfield>temporary</structfield> - is <literal>false</literal>. + set to <literal>true</literal>. </para> </listitem> </itemizedlist> -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-17 05:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-04-13 15:06 Logical Replication upgrade PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2026-04-15 15:55 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:04 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 03:29 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:13 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 05:46 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-16 07:09 ` vignesh C <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 03:54 ` Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 04:29 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2026-04-17 05:32 ` vignesh C <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox