On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 4:48 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 18:22, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 3:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 11:21 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > While working on some other code I noticed that in > > > > FindReplTupleInLocalRel() there is an assert [1] that seems to be > > > > passing IndexRelation to GetRelationIdentityOrPK() whereas it should > > > > be passing normal relation. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. But this should lead to assertion failure. Did you try testing it? > > > > No, I did not test this particular case, it impacted me with my other > > addition of the code where I got Index Relation as input to the > > RelationGetIndexList() function, and my local changes were impacted by > > that. I will write a test for this stand-alone case so that it hits > > the assert. Thanks for looking into this. > > The FindReplTupleInLocalRel function can be triggered by both update > and delete operations, but this only occurs if the relation has been > marked as updatable by the logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable function. If > the relation is marked as non-updatable, an error will be thrown by > check_relation_updatable. Given this, if a relation is updatable, the > IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull condition might always evaluate to > true due to the previous checks in logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable. > Therefore, it’s possible that we might not encounter the Assert > statement, as IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull may consistently be > true. > Thoughts?
With that it seems that the first Assert condition is useless isn't it? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
