On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:21 PM Marcos Pegoraro <mar...@f10.com.br> wrote: >> >> No, I´m talking about that configuration you can have on standby servers >> recovery_min_apply_delay = '8h' >> > > oh okay, I think this can be useful in some cases where we want to avoid data > loss similar to its use for physical standby. For example, if the user has by > mistake truncated the table (or deleted some required data) on the publisher, > we can always it from the subscriber if we have such a feature. > > Having said that, I am not sure if we can call it a restriction. It is more > of a TODO kind of thing. It doesn't sound advisable to me to keep growing the > current Restrictions page [1].
One could argue that not having delayed apply *is* a restriction compared to both physical replication and "the original upstream" pg_logical. I think therefore it should be mentioned in "Restrictions" so people considering moving from physical streaming to pg_logical or just trying to decide whether to use pg_logical are warned. Also, the Restrictions page starts with " These might be addressed in future releases." so there is no exclusivity of being either a restriction or TODO. > [1] - https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo > [2] - > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/logical-replication-restrictions.html ----- Hannu Krosing Google Cloud - We have a long list of planned contributions and we are hiring. Contact me if interested.
