On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 9:07 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > Attach the V16 patch which addressed the comments we agreed on. > > I will add a doc patch to explain the log format after the 0001 is RFC. > > > > Thank You for addressing comments. Please see this scenario: > > create table tab1(pk int primary key, val1 int unique, val2 int); > > pub: insert into tab1 values(1,1,1); > sub: insert into tab1 values(2,2,3); > pub: update tab1 set val1=2 where pk=1; > > Wrong 'replica identity' column logged? shouldn't it be pk? > > ERROR: conflict detected on relation "public.tab1": conflict=update_exists > DETAIL: Key already exists in unique index "tab1_val1_key", modified > locally in transaction 801 at 2024-08-19 08:50:47.974815+05:30. > Key (val1)=(2); existing local tuple (2, 2, 3); remote tuple (1, 2, > 1); replica identity (val1)=(1).
Apart from this one, I have no further comments on v16. thanks Shveta
