On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 2:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Pushed this one and now I'll look at your other patch. > > > > > > > I have pushed the second patch as well after making minor changes in > > the comments. Alvaro [1] and Tom [2] suggest to back-patch this and > > they sound reasonable to me. Will you be able to produce back branch > > patches? > > Yes. I've attached patches for backbranches. The updates are > straightforward on v11 - v15. However, on v10, we don't use > wait_for_catchup() in some logical replication test cases. The commit > bbd3363e128dae refactored the tests to use wait_for_catchup but it's > not backpatched. So in the patch for v10, I didn't change the code > that was changed by the commit. Also, since wait_for_catchup requires > to specify $target_lsn, unlike the one in v11 or later, I changed > wait_for_subscription_sync() accordingly. >
Thanks for your patches. In the patches for pg11 ~ pg14, it looks we need to add a "=pod" before the current change in PostgresNode.pm. Right? Regards, Shi yu
