On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:22 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:34 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 6:27 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Dilip for the patch. AFAIU, the fix looks good. One small > > > > > comment: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ashutosh and Dilip for working on this. I'll look into it in a > > > > day or two. > > > > > > > > > > Just a thought: > > > > > > Should we change the sequence of these #define in > > > src/include/replication/logicalproto.h? > > > > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MIN_VERSION_NUM 1 > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM 2 > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM 1 > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MAX_VERSION_NUM > > > LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM > > > > > > I would have changed above to something like this: > > > > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM 1 > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM 2 > > > > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MIN_VERSION_NUM LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM > > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MAX_VERSION_NUM > > > LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM > > > > > > > I am not sure if this suggestion makes it better than what is purposed > > by Dilip but I think we can declare them in define number order like > > below: > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MIN_VERSION_NUM 1 > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_VERSION_NUM 1 > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM 2 > > #define LOGICALREP_PROTO_MAX_VERSION_NUM LOGICALREP_PROTO_STREAM_VERSION_NUM > > > > The only reason I proposed that was because for the *_MAX_VERSION_NUM > we are using the latest PROTOCOL version name in its definition so why > not to do the same for defining *_MIN_VERSION_NUM as well. Other than > that, I also wanted to correct the sequence so that they are defined > in the increasing order which you have already done here. > > > Another thing is can we also test by having a publisher of v14 and > > subscriber of v13 or prior version, just reverse of what Ashutosh has > > tested? > > > > I've tested LR from PGv12 (Publisher) to PGv14 (Subscriber) and it works fine. >
I meant LR from PGv14 (Publisher) to PGv12 (Subscriber) not the other way. > -- > With Regards, > Ashutosh Sharma > EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
