On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 7:20 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 6:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > The patch looks mostly good to me. I have slightly tweaked the comments in
> > the code (as per my previous suggestion) and test. Also, I have slightly
> > modified the commit
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 6:50 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me. I have slightly tweaked the comments in
> the code (as per my previous suggestion) and test. Also, I have slightly
> modified the commit message. If the attached looks good to you then kindly
> prepare patches
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 12:47 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, at 3:10 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, at 3:10 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice in the case
> > > (change Replica Identity from Nothing to so
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice in the case
> > (change Replica Identity from Nothing to some index) you mentioned in
> > the previous email?
> >
>
> Oh, I see the poi
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 12, 2021 10:46 AM I wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 12, 2021 8:15 AM Euler Taveira
> > > wrote:
> > > > I reviewed your patch and I think the fix
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 10:46 AM I wrote:
> > On Friday, November 12, 2021 8:15 AM Euler Taveira
> > wrote:
> > > I reviewed your patch and I think the fix could be simplified by
> > >
> > > if (OidIsValid(indexOid))
> > > Ca
On Friday, November 12, 2021 10:46 AM I wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 8:15 AM Euler Taveira
> wrote:
> > I reviewed your patch and I think the fix could be simplified by
> >
> > if (OidIsValid(indexOid))
> > CacheInvalidateRelcache(rel);
> >
> > If indexOid is valid it is a REPLICA IDENTIT
On Friday, November 12, 2021 8:15 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
> I reviewed your patch and I think the fix could be simplified by
>
> if (OidIsValid(indexOid))
> CacheInvalidateRelcache(rel);
>
> If indexOid is valid it is a REPLICA IDENTITY INDEX. A few lines above there
> is
> a check for a valid
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021, at 9:01 AM, houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Also attach the patches for back branch and remove some unnecessary
> changes from pgindent.
I reviewed your patch and I think the fix could be simplified by
if (OidIsValid(indexOid))
CacheInvalidateRelcache(rel);
If indexOid is va
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 5:36 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Thur, Nov 11, 2021 12:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:07 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 7:29 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand the purpos
On Thur, Nov 11, 2021 12:08 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:07 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 7:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand the purpose of idx_b in the above test case, why is it
> > > required to reproduce the probl
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:07 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 7:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand the purpose of idx_b in the above test case, why is it
> > > required to reproduce the pro
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 7:07 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 7:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand the purpose of idx_b in the above test case, why is it
> > required to reproduce the problem?
> > @@ -15488,6 +15488,7 @@ relation_mark_replica_identity(Rel
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 7:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:42 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I think I found a bug related to logical replication(REPLICA IDENTITY in
> specific).
> > If I change REPLICA IDENTITY after creating publication, the
> DELETE/U
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:42 PM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I think I found a bug related to logical replication(REPLICA IDENTITY in
> specific).
> If I change REPLICA IDENTITY after creating publication, the DELETE/UPDATE
> operations won't be replicated as expected.
>
> For exa
Hi
I think I found a bug related to logical replication(REPLICA IDENTITY in
specific).
If I change REPLICA IDENTITY after creating publication, the DELETE/UPDATE
operations won't be replicated as expected.
For example:
-- publisher
CREATE TABLE tbl(a int, b int);
ALTER TABLE tbl ALTER COLUMN
17 matches
Mail list logo
