On Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:50 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:03 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > ~~~
> >
> > 1. worker.c - comment
> >
> > + subform = (Form_pg_subscription) GETSTRUCT(tup);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We would not be here unless this subscription's disableonerr field
> > + was
> > + * true, but check whether that field has changed in the interim.
> > + */
> > + if (!subform->subdisableonerr)
> > + {
> > + heap_freetuple(tup);
> > + table_close(rel, RowExclusiveLock);
> > + CommitTransactionCommand();
> > + return false;
> > + }
> >
> > I felt that comment belongs above the subform assignment because that
> > is the only reason we are getting the subform again.
>
> IIUC if we return false here, the same error will be emitted twice.
> And I'm not sure this check is really necessary. It would work only when the
> subdisableonerr is set to false concurrently, but doesn't work for the
> opposite
> caces. I think we can check
> MySubscription->disableonerr and then just update the tuple.
Addressed. I followed your advice and deleted the check.
Kindly have a look at v22 shared in [1].
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYCPR01MB8373D9B26F988307B0D3FE20ED3E9%40TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
