On 4/20/17 22:57, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Petr Jelinek > <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 20/04/17 23:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 4/20/17 10:19, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>>> Hmm well since this only affects the synchronization of table >>>> states/names, I guess we could just simply do that before we create the >>>> slot as there is no expectancy of consistency between slot and the table >>>> list snapshot. >>> >>> I suppose that wouldn't hurt. >>> >>> Prior to the table sync patch, a missing target relation would just show >>> up as an error later on in the logs. So having the error sooner >>> actually seems like a good change. >>> >> >> Very simple patch to make. > > +1 for that.
Committed that. I don't think there is anything else open here. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
