Hi, On 6/5/20 11:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Jun-05, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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.
The PG13 RMT had a discussion about this thread, and while the initial crash has been fixed, we decided to re-open the Open Item around whether we should allow physical replication to be initiated in a logical replication session. We anticipate a resolution for PG13, whether it is explicitly disallowing physical replication from occurring on a logical replication slot, maintaining the status quo, or something else such that there is consensus on the approach. Thanks, Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature