On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:15 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 12:39 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > 3) v55-0002 > > > > +static bool pgoutput_row_filter_update_check(enum > > > > ReorderBufferChangeType changetype, Relation relation, > > > > + > > > > HeapTuple oldtuple, HeapTuple newtuple, > > > > + > > > > RelationSyncEntry *entry, ReorderBufferChangeType *action); > > > > > > > > Do we need parameter changetype here? I think it could only be > > > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE. > > > > > > I didn't change this, I think it might be better to wait for Ajin's > > > opinion. > > > > I agree with Tang. AFAIK there is no problem removing that redundant > > param as suggested. BTW - the Assert within that function is also > > incorrect because the only possible value is > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE. I will make these fixes in a future > > version. > > > > That sounds fine to me too. One more thing is that you don't need to > modify the action in case it remains update as the caller has already > set that value. Currently, we are modifying it as update at two places > in this function, we can remove both of those and keep the comments > intact for the later update. >
Fixed in v59* [1] ------ [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPsiw9fbOUTpCMWirut1ZD5hbWk8_U9tZya4mG-YK%2Bfq8g%40mail.gmail.com Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
