On 06/05/17 19:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 06/05/17 19:15, Tom Lane wrote: >>> (Or, wait a minute. That documentation only applies to v10, but we >>> need to be writing this relnote for 9.6 users. What terminology should >>> we be using anyway?) > >> Yeah we need to somehow mention that it only affects 3rd party tools >> using logical decoding. > >> "The initial snapshot created for a logical decoding slot was >> potentially incorrect. This could allow the 3rd party tools using >> the logical decoding to copy incomplete existing(?) data. This was >> more likely to happen if the source server was busy at the time of >> slot creation, or if two slots were created concurrently." > >>> Also, do we need to recommend that people not trust any logical replicas >>> at this point, but recreate them after installing the update? > >> Yes, but only if there was preexisting data *and* there was concurrent >> activity on the server when the "replication" was setup. > > OK, I can work with this. Thanks for the help! >
Great, thanks. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
