From: Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
To: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: RE: Correction in doc of failover ready steps
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 03:32:12 +0000
Message-ID: <OS0PR01MB57165C9AEDDCEFD44B0BB1CB94AA2@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJpy0uAeROTfqdoGWvZ9zqH4kRX5LECEGP1q-cTdmV9sYmWG6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJpy0uBBk+OZXXqQ00Gai09XR+mDi2=9sMBYY0F+BedoFivaMA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAKG3moYA0pwQoQ2sv1d-S0CmfXsZf_9C_83UqtREaj+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+voWz3b1zL=RP4AcsDuLfRv7N=Rom2od5uD-geKEQDGA@mail.gmail.com>
<OS0PR01MB5716A706053B6EEA2B4EC20B94A92@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAJpy0uArGF6S4if6Aet82s5NEnfcPSKVBHGcxGx-m5Q+XHso6w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1JahE4YRb1ixyKdi7uc-v1cbO3iJVWNbAOkzBSdbDXVwA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAeROTfqdoGWvZ9zqH4kRX5LECEGP1q-cTdmV9sYmWG6w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday, July 24, 2024 10:56 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One minor comment:
> > - if the table copy is finished (See <xref
> > linkend="catalog-pg-subscription-rel"/>).
> > + On the subscriber node, use the following SQL to identify which main
> > + slots should be synced to the standby that we plan to promote.
> > + This query
> >
> > Shall we refer to these slots as replication slots instead of main
> > slots in the above sentence? We don't have a main slot terminology at
> > other places, so it would be better not to introduce a new one. I know
> > that it was introduced in the original commit but it seems better to
> > change if we agree.
>
> Yes, it makes sense. Please find the patch with this change.
Thanks for the patch.
Here is one comment:
The second query has a condition 'WHERE slot_name IS NOT NULL', but I
think it belongs to the first query. Because the slot_name of second query
is built by CONCAT() which means it should be valid, while the first query's
subslotname could be NULL if user executed ALTER SUB SET (slot_name = NONE).
Apart from above, it looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com, shveta.malik@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: RE: Correction in doc of failover ready steps
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB57165C9AEDDCEFD44B0BB1CB94AA2@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox