On Thursday, July 31, 2025 5:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> > wrote: > > > > This is the V54 patch set, with only patch 0001 updated to address the > > latest comments. > > > > Few minor comments:
Thanks for the comments. > 1. > /* The row to be updated was deleted by a different origin */ > CT_UPDATE_DELETED, > /* The row to be updated was modified by a different origin */ > CT_UPDATE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS, > /* The updated row value violates unique constraint */ CT_UPDATE_EXISTS, > /* The row to be updated is missing */ > CT_UPDATE_MISSING, > > Is there a reason to keep CT_UPDATE_DELETED before > CT_UPDATE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS? I mean why not keep it just before > CT_UPDATE_MISSING on the grounds that they are always handled together? I agree that it makes more sense to put it before update_missing, and changed it. > > 2. Will it be better to name FindRecentlyDeletedTupleInfoByIndex as > RelationFindDeletedTupleInfoByIndex to make it similar to existing function > RelationFindReplTupleByIndex? If you agree then make a similar change for > FindRecentlyDeletedTupleInfoSeq as well. Yes, the suggested name looks better. > > Apart from above, please find a number of comment edits and other cosmetic > changes in the attached. Thanks, I have addressed above comments and merge the patch into 0001. Here is V55 patch set. Best Regards, Hou zj
v55-0004-Re-create-the-replication-slot-if-the-conflict-r.patch
Description: v55-0004-Re-create-the-replication-slot-if-the-conflict-r.patch
v55-0001-Support-the-conflict-detection-for-update_delete.patch
Description: v55-0001-Support-the-conflict-detection-for-update_delete.patch
v55-0002-Collect-statistics-for-update_deleted-conflicts.patch
Description: v55-0002-Collect-statistics-for-update_deleted-conflicts.patch
v55-0003-Introduce-a-new-GUC-max_conflict_retention_durat.patch
Description: v55-0003-Introduce-a-new-GUC-max_conflict_retention_durat.patch
