Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:51:48 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical ()
 at walsender.c:2762
Message-ID: <20200605155148.GA19795@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADK3HH+BawQ+DHd6ZMfQcC_+__=eOnaW_A=JVxupe7jeN5Qg5g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Jun-05, Dave Cramer wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:

> > Ouch ... so they made IDENT in the replication grammar be a trigger to
> > enter the regular grammar.  Crazy.  No way to put those worms back in
> > the tin now, I guess.
> 
> Is that documented ?

I don't think it is.

> > It is still my opinion that we should prohibit a logical replication
> > connection from being used to do physical replication.  Horiguchi-san,
> > Sawada-san and Masao-san are all of the same opinion.  Dave Cramer (of
> > the JDBC team) is not opposed to the change -- he says they're just
> > using it because they didn't realize they should be doing differently.
> 
> I think my exact words were
> 
> "I don't see this is a valid reason to keep doing something. If it is
> broken then fix it.
> Clients can deal with the change."
> 
> in response to:
> 
> > Well, I don't really think that we can just break a behavior that
> > exists since 9.4 as you could break applications relying on the
> > existing behavior, and that's also the point of Vladimir upthread.
> 
> Which is different than not being opposed to the change. I don't see this
> as broken, and it's quite possible that some of our users are using
> it.

Apologies for misinterpreting.

> It certainly needs to be documented

I'd rather not.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services