On 5/9/17 04:39, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> What we want to simulate instead is an "auto" dependency of the slot on >>> the subscription. So you can drop the slot separately (subject to other >>> restrictions), and it is dropped automatically when the subscription is >>> dropped. To avoid that, you can disassociate the slot from the >>> subscription, which you have implemented. >>> >>> I think we can therefore do without RESTRICT/CASCADE here. If a slot is >>> associated with the subscription, it should be there when we drop the >>> subscription. Otherwise, the user has to disassociate the slot and take >>> care of it manually. So just keep the "cascade" behavior. >>> >>> Similarly, I wouldn't check first whether the slot exists. If the >>> subscription is associated with the slot, it should be there. >> >> Here is your patch amended for that. > > I am fine with this mechanism as well.
Committed. I also wrote a bit of documentation about slot handling for subscriptions, covering some of what was discussed in this thread. -- 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
