On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 9:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BTW have we addressed the point Amit mentioned befo
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:00:55PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > > > > 0001 patch allows us to create a logical slot without WAL
> > > > > > > reservation.
>
> Thanks for the patch and sorry to be late in this conversatio
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:06 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comments!
>
> >
> > 2)
> > I see that when primary switches back its effective wal_level to
> > replica while standby has wal_level=logical in conf file, then standby
> > has this status:
> >
> > postgres=# show wal_level
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> This whole paragraph sounds like a duplicate of its previous section,
> and the line alignment in the first paragraph has some issues.
>
Sorry for the wrong upload, duplicacy was the merge issue. Removed the
duplicate paragraph and corrected
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:31 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I think it's the user's responsibility to keep at least one logical
> slot. It seems that setting wal_level to 'logical' would be the most
> reliable solution for this case. We might want to provide a way to
> keep 'logical' WAL level some
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 9:29 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 0001:
> * Removed the slot acquisition as suggested above.
>
> 0002:
> * Addressed the comments above.
>
Thanks for the patches.
In advance_conflict_slot_xmin(), if new_xmin is same as slot's current
xmin, then shall we simply retu
On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 11:08 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I feel WARNING and CAUTION markups could be a little strong for the
> > concerned case. Such markups are generally used when there is a
> > side-effect involved with the usage. But in our case, there is no such
> > side-effect with the API.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 1:00 PM Perumal Raj wrote:
>
> Yes Shveta!
>
> I could see repeated message in New-replica .
>
> 2025-06-13 06:20:30.146 UTC [277861] LOG: could not synchronize replication
> slot "kafka_logical_slot" because remote slot precedes local slot
> 2025-06-13 06:20:30.146 UTC [
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:22 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:34 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is the V35 patch set which includes the following changes:
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches. Few comments:
>
>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:23 AM Perumal Raj wrote:
>
> Hi Hou zj
>
> I have found some strange issue , but not sure if I am doing anything wrong.
>
> I am able to see logical slot at STANDBY even after promote. 👏
Good to know.
>
> Importantly Logical replication slot is persistance in STANDBYs w
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:34 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is the V35 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Thank You for the patches. Few comments:
1)
Since now we create slot for rci enabled subscription, it will require
wal_level >= replica even on subscribers. We sha
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes?
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > I mean, I'm not 100% against using exist
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:31 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> BTW have we addressed the point Amit mentioned before[1]?
>
> > The one more combination to consider is when someone takes a dump of
> > an older version and loads it into a newer version. For example, where
> > users dump from 17.5 and
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:13 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Phrases like "... it is recommended..." and "... intended for testing
> and debugging .. " and "... should be used with caution." and "... it
> is advisable to..." seem like indicators that parts of the above
> description should be using SGML
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:05 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was reviewing the code for conflict report
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:55 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V35 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Thank You for the patches, few comments:
1)
compute_min_nonremovable_xid:
+ /*
+ * Stop advancing xmin if an invalid non-removable transaction ID is
+ * found, othe
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:20 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> I have few suggestions for the document from a user's perspective.
>
Thanks Hou-San, I agree with your suggestions. Addressed in v4.
Also addressed Amit's suggestion at [1] to improve errdetail.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 12:37 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Attached v18 patch.
> - patch-001: modified error messages as suggested above.
> - patch-002: improved pg_dump docs as per Shveta's off-list suggestions.
>
Thanks for the patches. Please find few comments:
1)
+ * However, we allow this com
On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 2:44 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 3:02 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 3:40 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> &g
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:10 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for the detailed response. I will proceed with the native
> implementation for synchronizing logical replication slots.
Sure, thanks!
> In a maintenance context, when standby is shutdown, it's possible to
> temporar
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 3:40 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, I find the idea that the presence of a logical slot will allow
>
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the V33 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Thank You for the patches, please find few comments for patch003:
1)
+ /*
+ * Skip the track_commit_timestamp check by passing it as
+ * true, since it has already bee
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:01 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm working with logical replication in a PostgreSQL 17 setup, and I'm
> exploring the new synchronized_standby_slots parameter to make replication
> slots failover safe in a highly available environment using physical standby
>
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:46 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attaching the V32 patch set which addressed comments in [1]~[5].
> >
>
> Review comments:
> ===
> *
> +advance_conflict_slot_xmin(FullTransactionId new_xmin)
>
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I find the idea that the presence of a logical slot will allow
> > the user to enable logical decoding/replication more appealing than
> > this new alternative, leaving aside
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:09 PM vignesh C wrote:
> These comments are handled in the attached v2025029 version patch.
>
Thanks for the patches. I am still reviewing but please find few comments:
1)
Only persistent sequences are included in the publication. Temporary
sequences a
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 3:59 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:46 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attaching the V32 patch set which addressed comments in [1]~[5].
>
> Thanks for the patch, I am still reviewing the patches, please find
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:56 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I didn't know it was intended for testing and debugging purposes so
> clearilying it in the documentation would be a good idea.
I have added the suggested docs in v3.
thanks
Shveta
v3-0001-Improve-log-messages-and-docs-for-slotsync.
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:46 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attaching the V32 patch set which addressed comments in [1]~[5].
Thanks for the patch, I am still reviewing the patches, please find
few trivial comments for patch001:
1)
+ FullTransactionId last_phase_at; /* publisher transaction
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:02 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Agree that log messages need improvement. Please find the patch
> attached for the same. I also intend to update the docs in this area
> for users to understand this feature better, and will work on that
> soon.
>
PFA
On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 10:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> If the
> > problem is that we're not able to create a slot on the standby at an
> > old enough LSN or XID position to permit its use with the
> > corresponding slot on the master, it should be reported that way.
> >
>
> That is the case, and w
Thanks you for v31 patch-set. Please find few comments on patch001:
1)
wait_for_local_flush:
+ if (data->last_recv_time &&
+ TimestampDifferenceExceeds(data->flushpos_update_time,
+data->last_recv_time, WalWriterDelay))
+ {
+ XLogRecPtr writepos;
+ XLogRecPtr flushpos;
+ bool have_pending_tx
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:13 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > Test-scenario:
> > --Created 250 sequences on both pub and sub.
> > --There were 10 sequences mismatched.
> > --Sequence replication worked as expected. Logs look better now:
> >
> > LOG: Logical replication sequence synchronization for su
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:38 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Please find few more comments:
>
> 1)
> ProcessStandbyPSRequestMessage:
> + /*
> + * This shouldn't happen because we don't support getting primary status
> + * message from standby.
> + */
> + if (Re
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:24 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:38 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find few more comments:
> >
> > 1)
> > ProcessStandbyPSRequestMessage:
> > + /*
> > + * This shouldn't happen because we
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:35 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, these are handled in the attached v20250516
> > version patch.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patches. Here are my review comments -
>
> Patch-0004: src/backend/replication/logical/sequencesync.c
>
> The sequence count l
Please find few more comments:
1)
ProcessStandbyPSRequestMessage:
+ /*
+ * This shouldn't happen because we don't support getting primary status
+ * message from standby.
+ */
+ if (RecoveryInProgress())
+ elog(ERROR, "the primary status is unavailable during recovery");
a) This error is not cle
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 10:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:11 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Few comments for patch004:
> > > > Config.sgml
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 11:15 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 4:06 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 2)
> > in wait_for_local_flush(), we have
> > should_stop_conflict_info_retention() before 'AllTablesyncsReady'
> > check. Should we
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 6:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 4:06 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Here is V30 patch set includes the following changes:
> > >
> >
> > Thank You for the patch, please find few concerns:
>
Hi All,
It is a spin-off thread from earlier discussions at [1] and [2].
While analyzing the slot-sync BF failure as stated in [1], it was
observed that there are chances that confirmed_flush_lsn may move
backward depending on the feedback messages received from the
downstream system. It was susp
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 4:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 4:52 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, this is possible. Here is my theory as to how it can happen in the
> > > current
> > > case. In the
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 7:27 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, the updated patch has the changes for the same.
>
Thanks for the patches. Please find few comments:
1)
patch004 commit msg:
- Drop published sequences are removed from pg_subscription_rel.
Drop -->Dropped
2)
c
On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:36 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
>
> Attached is the v13 patch with the above comments addressed.
>
> --
Thanks for the patch.
I think we can have the restriction mentioned under the 'two_phase'
section as well along with the 'failover' section in the CREATE
SUBSCRIPTION doc,
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:29 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Please find the v12 patch with above suggested changes.
>
Thanks for the patch. Few comments for doc changes:
1)
func.sgml - pg_create_logical_replication_slot:
+failover. The parameters twophase and
+failover cannot be enabl
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 12:57 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
>
> Please find the v11 patch addressing the above points and all other
> comments. I have also optimized the test by reducing the number of
> subscriptions and slots.
>
Thanks for the patch. Few comments:
1)
pg_upgrade/t/003_logical_slots.pl
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 4:05 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is V30 patch set includes the following changes:
> >
>
> Thank You for the patch, please find few concerns:
>
Please find few more concerns:
3)
In get_candidate_xid(), we first set candidate_xid_tim
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 4:33 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Please find the v9 patch, addressing the above and all other comments as well.
>
Thanks for the patch.
1)
+ The default is false. This option cannot be set together with
+ two_phase when creating the slot. However, once
+
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 2:27 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:14 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Fix
> > > -
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the confirmed_flush even if the previous
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 5:53 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Please find the attached v8 patch with above comments addressed.
> This version includes the documentation updates suggested by
> Sawada-san at [1], and incorporates his feedback from [2] as well.
>
Thanks for the patches.
1)
Regarding docu
>
> Here is V30 patch set includes the following changes:
>
Thank You for the patch, please find few concerns:
1)
By looking at code of ApplyLauncherMain(), it appears that we stopped
advancing shared-slot's xmin if any of the subscriptions with
retain_conflict_info is disabled. If a subscription
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:11 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
> > Few comments for patch004:
> > Config.sgml:
> > 1)
> > +
> > +Maximum duration (in milliseconds) for which conflict
> > +information can be retained for conflict detection by the apply
> > worker.
> > +
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 2:54 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Please find the updated patch for Approach 3, which implements the
> idea suggested by Swada-san above.
>
Thank You for the patch.
1)
CreateDecodingContext:
if (ctx->twophase && !slot->data.two_phase)
{
+ /*
+ * Do not allow two-phase
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:36 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> To fix this, I think we can allow the base snapshot to be built during fast
> forward decoding, as implemented in the patch 0001 (We already built base
> snapshot in fast-forward mode for logical message in logicalmsg_decode(
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:03 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
>
> Patch "v5_aprch_3-0001" implements the above Approach 3.
>
> Thanks Hou-san for implementing approach-2 and providing the patch.
>
I find Approach 2 better than Approach1. Yet to review Approach3.
Please find my initial comments:
Approach
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:30 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a rebased version of the patch series.
> >
>
Few comments for patch004:
Config.sgml:
1)
+
+Maximum duration (
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here's a rebased version of the patch series.
>
Thanks Hou-San for the patches. I am going through this long thread
and patches. One doubt I have is whenever there is a chance of
conflict-slot update (either xmin or possibility of it
On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 4:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2024 2:34 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:58 AM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM Nisha Moond
>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:58 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
>
Please find few comments on v14-patch004:
patch004:
1)
GetConflictResolver currently errors out when the resolver is
last_update_wins and track_commit_timestamp is dis
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
I have not started reviewing v15 yet, but here are few comments for
v14-patch003:
1)
In apply_handle_update_internal(), I see that
FindReplTupleInLocalRel() used to lock the row to be updated in
exclusive mode, but now since we are avoiding thi
On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 2:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> >
> > With parallel streaming as default, do you think there is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:03 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
With parallel streaming as default, do you think there is a need to
increase the default for 'max_logical_replication_workers' as IIUC
parallel workers are taken from the same pool.
thanks
Shveta
On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 12:34 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 11:07, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:36 AM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 11:54, vignesh C wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:54 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
>
> I have started reviewing patch002, it is WIP, but please find initial
> set of comments:
>
Please find second set of comments for patch002:
9)
can_create_fu
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
I have started reviewing patch002, it is WIP, but please find initial
set of comments:
1.
ExecSimpleRelationInsert():
+ /* Check for conflict and return to caller for resolution if found */
+ if (resolver != CR_ER
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:55 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:29 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:33 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:44 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > Here is the v14 patch-set fixing review comments in [1] and [2].
> > > >
>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > 13. General - ordering of conflict_type.
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are some review comments for v14-0001.
>
> This is a WIP, but here are my comments for all the SGML parts.
>
> (There will be some overlap here with comments already posted by Shveta)
>
> ==
> 1. file modes after applying the patch
>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 10:44 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > > Here is the v14 patch-set fixing review comments in [1] and [2].
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I am reviewing patch001, it is WIP, but ple
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 2:57 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:40 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> > Here is the v14 patch-set fixing review comments in [1] and [2].
> >
>
> Thanks for the patches. I am reviewing pa
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:40 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review.
> Here is the v14 patch-set fixing review comments in [1] and [2].
>
Thanks for the patches. I am reviewing patch001, it is WIP, but please
find initial set of comments:
1)
Please see these 2 errors:
postgres=# create
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:36 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 11:54, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 08:33, Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vignesh, Here are my only review comments for the latest patch set.
> >
> > Thanks, these issues have been addressed in the
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:01 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:23:17AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > + OUT catchange_xip xid[]
> >
> > One question, what is xid datatype, is it too int8? Sorry, could not
> > find the correct
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 10:23 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 09:15:31AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Please find attached v8, that:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:57 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> My review comments for v8-0001
>
> ==
> contrib/pg_logicalinspect/pg_logicalinspect.c
>
> 1.
> +/*
> + * Lookup table for SnapBuildState.
> + */
> +
> +#define SNAPBUILD_STATE_INCR 1
> +
> +static const char *const SnapBuildStateDesc[] = {
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
>
> Please find attached v8, that:
>
Thank You for the patch. In one of my tests, I noticed that I got
negative checksum:
postgres=# SELECT * FROM pg_get_logical_snapshot_meta('0/3481F20');
magic| checksum | version
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 12:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> >
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 5:43 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> >
>
> I was reviewing the CONFLICT RESOLVER (insert_exists='apply_remote')
> and found that one conflict remains unresolved in the following
> scenario:
Thanks for the review and testing.
> Pub:
> CREATE TABLE circles(c1 CIRCLE, c2 text, EXCLU
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 12:17 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
Thanks for the patch.
Should we include in the document who can execute these functions and
the required access permissions, similar to how it's done for
pgwalinspect, pg_ls_logicalmapdir(), and other s
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 3:31 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 2:49 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > > > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > > > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's re
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 2:49 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
> > >
When the synced slot is marked as 'inactive
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:21 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > comments and your test
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
>
Thanks for addressing comments.
Is there a reason that we don't support this inva
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 12:44 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:18:35AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > Thanks for addressing the comments. I have not started reviewing v4
> > yet, but here are few more comments on v3:
> >
> >
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:46 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 16, 2024, shveta malik wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:18 AM shveta malik wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for addressing the comments. I have not started reviewing v
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:18 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks for addressing the comments. I have not started reviewing v4
> yet, but here are few more comments on v3:
>
I just noticed that when we pass NULL input, both the new functions
give 1 row as output, all cols as NULL:
new
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 8:03 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 04:02:51PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 4:21 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, good idea. Done that way
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Another question aside from the above point, what if so
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 4:21 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, good idea. Done that way in v3 attached.
>
Thanks for the patch. +1 on the patch's idea. I have started
reviewing/testing it. It is WIP but please find few initial comments:
src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c:
1)
+ fsy
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:13 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
> > > >
> > &g
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
> >
> > Hi Shveta,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I was trying to have a look at the patch a
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 11:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So in brief, this solution is only for bidrectional setup? For
> > > non-bidirectional,
> > > feedback_slots is non-configurable and thus irrelevant.
> >
> > Right.
> >
>
> One possible idea to address the non-bidirectional case ra
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > I was trying to have a look at the patch again, it doesn't apply on
> > the head, needs rebase.
> >
>
> Reba
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:15 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2024 12:18 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 5:56 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
>
> Please find the attached v2 patch also having Shveta's review comments
> addressed.
The v2 patch looks good to me.
thanks
Shveta
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 2:45 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> > > ---
> > > THE DESIGN
> > > ---
> > >
> > > To achieve the above, we plan to allow the logical walsender to
&
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:07 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> I am starting a new thread to discuss and propose the conflict detection for
> update_deleted scenarios during logical replication. This conflict occurs when
> the apply worker cannot find the target tuple to be updat
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:11 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ALTER_REPLICATION_SLOT on invalidated replication slots is unnecessary
> as there is no way to get the invalidated (logical) slot to work.
> Please find the patch to add an error in such cases. Relevant
> discussion is at [1].
>
1 - 100 of 500 matches
Mail list logo
