On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 5:24 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 5:18 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have modified the patch based on the above comments.
> >
>
> The patch looks good to me. I have slightly modified the comments and
> commit message. See, what you think of the attac
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 5:18 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have modified the patch based on the above comments.
>
The patch looks good to me. I have slightly modified the comments and
commit message. See, what you think of the attached? I think we can
leave the test for this as there doesn't seem t
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:09 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:18 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote
>
> >I tried to think about how to write a test case for this scenario, but
> >I think it will not be possible to generate an automated test case for this.
> >Basically, we
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:18 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote
>I tried to think about how to write a test case for this scenario, but
>I think it will not be possible to generate an automated test case for this.
>Basically, we need 2 concurrent transactions and out of that,
>we need one transaction w
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:02 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:25 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > I have modified the patch based on the above comments.
> >
> > Thanks for your patch.
> > I tested again after applying your patch and the problem is fixed.
>
> Thank
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:25 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> > I have modified the patch based on the above comments.
>
> Thanks for your patch.
> I tested again after applying your patch and the problem is fixed.
Thanks for confirming.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.en
> I have modified the patch based on the above comments.
Thanks for your patch.
I tested again after applying your patch and the problem is fixed.
Regards
Tang
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:22 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > > > Can't we use 'txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn' list for this purpose? It is
> > > > > ensured in ReorderBufferSetBaseSn
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:22 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Can't we use 'txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn' list for this purpose? It is
> > > > ensured in ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot that we always assign
> > > > base_snapshot to a top-level tran
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Can't we use 'txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn' list for this purpose? It is
> > > ensured in ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot that we always assign
> > > base_snapshot to a top-level transaction if the current is a known
> > > subxact. I think that w
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:50 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kuma
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:43 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am able to reproduce this and I think I have don
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I am able to reproduce this and I think I have done the initial
> > > investigation.
> > >
> > > The cause of the issu
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:52 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I am able to reproduce this and I think I have done the initial
> > > investigation.
> > >
> > > The cause of the issu
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I am able to reproduce this and I think I have done the initial
> > investigation.
> >
> > The cause of the issue is that, this transaction has only one change
> > and that change is
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:55 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:26 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 12:45 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I think I may found a bug when using streaming in logical replication.
> >> Could anyone
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:26 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 12:45 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think I may found a bug when using streaming in logical replication. Could
>> anyone please take a look at this?
>>
>> Here's what I did to produce the probl
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 12:45 PM, tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com <
tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think I may found a bug when using streaming in logical replication.
> Could anyone please take a look at this?
>
> Here's what I did to produce the problem.
> I set logical_decoding_work_mem and
18 matches
Mail list logo
