On 5/25/17 17:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Another way to fix this particular issue is to not verify the
> replication slot name before doing the drop. After all, if the name is
> not valid, then you can also just report that it doesn't exist.
Here is a possible patch along these lines.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From 1e09473bb2f571af0a6a8e4ca718d291efa63772 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:57:01 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Remove replication slot name check from
ReplicationSlotAcquire()
When trying to access a replication slot that is supposed to already
exist, we don't need to check the naming rules again. If the slot
does not exist, we will then get a "does not exist" error message, which
is generally more useful from the perspective of an end user.
---
src/backend/replication/slot.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
index 5386e86aa6..c0f7fbb2b2 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
@@ -331,8 +331,6 @@ ReplicationSlotAcquire(const char *name)
Assert(MyReplicationSlot == NULL);
- ReplicationSlotValidateName(name, ERROR);
-
/* Search for the named slot and mark it active if we find it. */
LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED);
for (i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
--
2.13.0
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
