On 15.06.23 04:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I wanted to backpatch the following change which provides somewhat
> accurate information about what a user needs to do when it faces an
> error.
> To proceed in
> - this situation, disassociate the subscription from the replication slot by
> - executing <literal>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = NONE)</literal>.
> + this situation, first <literal>DISABLE</literal> the subscription, and then
> + disassociate it from the replication slot by executing
> + <literal>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = NONE)</literal>.
>
> Now, along with this change, there is a change in errhint as well
> which I am not sure about whether to backpatch or not. I think we have
> the following options (a) commit both doc and code change in HEAD (b)
> commit both doc and code change in v17 when the next version branch
> opens (c) backpatch the doc change and commit the code change in HEAD
> only (d) backpatch the doc change and commit the code change in v17
> (e) backpatch both the doc and code change.
Reading the thread again now, I think this is essentially a bug fix, so
I don't mind backpatching it.
I wish the errhint would show the actual command to disable the
subscription. It already shows the command to detach the replication
slot, so it would only be consistent to also show the other command.
