On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 12:35, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 09:00, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:31 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 17:31, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Attached patch has the fix for this issue which includes the > > > > > partition tables also for the publication now and throws a warning > > > > > appropriately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The corresponding query (see "To find which tables might potentially > > > > include non-local origins .." on [1]) on the create_subscription doc > > > > page. > > > > > > > BTW, the proposed fix is not backpatcheable as it changes the catalog > > > > which requires catversion bump. However, as this is a WARNING case, if > > > > we can't find a fix that can't be backpatched, we can fix it in > > > > HEAD-only. > > > > > > I could not find a way to fix the back version without changing the > > > catalog > > > version. > > > > > > The attached v3 version has the changes for the same. > > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > I agree that covering the partitioned table case when checking the non-local > > origin data on publisher is an improvement. But I think adding or extending > > the > > SQL functions may not be the appropriate way to fix because the new > > functions > > cannot be used in older PG version and is also not backpatchable. > > > > I am thinking it would be better to use the existing > > pg_partition_ancestors() > > and pg_partition_tree() to verify the same, which can be used in all > > supported > > PG versions and is also backpatchable. > > > > And here is another version which fixed the issue like that. I have not > > added > > tests for it, but I think it's doable to write the something like the > > testcases > > provided by Sergey. This patch does not fix the foreign tabel as that seems > > to > > be a separate issue which can be fixed independtly. > > > > Hi Sergey, if you have the time, could you please verify whether this patch > > resolves the partition issue you reported? I've confirmed that it passes the > > partitioned tests in the scripts, but I would appreciate your confirmation > > for > > the same. > > Hi Hou-san, > > I tested the patch, and it is working fine on HEAD. > I also tried to apply the patches to back branches PG17 and PG 16. But > the patch does not apply. > > This 'origin' option was added in PG 16. So, this patch will not be > required for PG 15 and back branches. > I have created a patch which applies to both PG17 and PG 16. The v6-0002 is the test patch. It applies to all the branches (HEAD, PG17, PG16) correctly.
Thanks and Regards, Shlok Kyal
v6-0001-Improve-logging-for-data-origin-discrepancies-in-.patch
Description: Binary data
v6-0001-PG-17-and-PG-16-Improve-logging-for-data-origin-d.patch
Description: Binary data
v6-0002-Test-for-Improve-logging-for-data-origin-discrepa.patch
Description: Binary data
