public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Euler Taveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Shlok Kyal <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]>
Cc: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <[email protected]>
Cc: vignesh C <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: speed up a logical replica setup
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:56:10 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1KD5hmmcC2a_PoCwjTKARJyWRdmf3O9cqE-D3Y5FJR2NA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CALDaNm2ev8_r4N5Sfa2GjzuzZNz17L0nsX_ZqfcarmS5oa5Szw@mail.gmail.com>
<TYCPR01MB12077CD333376B53F9CAE7AC0F5562@TYCPR01MB12077.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYCPR01MB12077121263EFF7680486B635F5212@TYCPR01MB12077.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<TYCPR01MB12077DE77454D68E959E85E35F5272@TYCPR01MB12077.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<CANhcyEW6-dH28gLbFc5XpDTJ6JPizU+t5g-aKUWJBf5W_Zriqw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1JtnzqYNQ_S+mj_XsPfgk7szxegKiVQq4-8fY1wUcUnpg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1KD5hmmcC2a_PoCwjTKARJyWRdmf3O9cqE-D3Y5FJR2NA@mail.gmail.com>
On 19.03.24 08:05, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:22 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In check_subscriber(): All these permissions checks seem problematic
>> to me. We shouldn't reimplement our own copy of the server's
>> permission checks. The server can check the permissions. And if the
>> permission checking in the server ever changes, then we have
>> inconsistencies to take care of. Also, the error messages "permission
>> denied" are inappropriate, because we are not doing the actual thing.
>> Maybe we want to do a dry-run for the benefit of the user, but then we
>> should do the actual thing, like try to create a replication slot, or
>> whatever. But I would rather just remove all this, it seems too
>> problematic.
>>
>
> If we remove all the checks then there is a possibility that we can
> fail later while creating the actual subscription. For example, if
> there are not sufficient max_replication_slots, then it is bound to
> fail in the later steps which would be a costlier affair because by
> that time the standby would have been promoted and the user won't have
> any way to move forward but to re-create standby and then use this
> tool again. I think here the patch tries to mimic pg_upgrade style
> checks where we do some pre-checks.
I think checking for required parameter settings is fine. My concern is
with the code before that, that does
pg_has_role/has_database_privilege/has_function_privilege.
view thread (107+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: speed up a logical replica setup
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox