On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 3:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:37 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 4:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote > > > <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila > > > > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote > > > > > <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > As in, > > > > > > do we know of any replication (initial/streaming) misbehavior > > > > > > caused by the duplicate partition OIDs in this case or is the > > > > > > only problem that pg_publication_tables output looks odd? > > > > > > > > > > The latter one but I think either we should document this or > > > > > change it as we can't assume users will follow what subscriber-side > > > > > code does. > > > > > > > > On second thought, I agree that de-duplicating partitions from > > > > this view is an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough. Hou-San, Can you please submit the updated patch after > > > fixing any pending comments including the test case? > > > > Attach the updated patch which address the comments so far. > > > > The patch only adds a testcase in publication.sql because the > > duplicate output doesn't cause unexpected behavior in pub-sub test. > > > > Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have slightly changed the commit > message in the attached. I would like to commit this only in HEAD as there is > no > user complaint about this and it might not stop any user's service unless it > relies > on this view's output for the initial table synchronization. > > What do you think? I agreed that we can commit only in HEAD.
Best regards, Hou zj
