> On Dec 18, 2025, at 15:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 18.12.25 01:22, Chao Li wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 2025, at 22:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 15.12.25 10:16, Chao Li wrote:
The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While working
on [1]. I added an enum-
On 18.12.25 01:22, Chao Li wrote:
On Dec 17, 2025, at 22:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 15.12.25 10:16, Chao Li wrote:
The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While working on
[1]. I added an enum-typed GUC and made a copy-and-paste mistake, assigning the
same numeric valu
> On Dec 18, 2025, at 05:32, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>> . While working on [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC
>
> I wanted to check the original issue, but the linked patch adds a
> boolean GUC (logical_replication_fallback_to_full_identity), I did not
> see enum mentioned anywhere in t
> On Dec 17, 2025, at 23:19, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-12-15 17:16:56 +0800, Chao Li wrote:
>> The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While working
>> on [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC and made a copy-and-paste mistake,
>> assigning the same numeric value t
> On Dec 17, 2025, at 22:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 15.12.25 10:16, Chao Li wrote:
>> The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While working on
>> [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC and made a copy-and-paste mistake, assigning
>> the same numeric value to two different
Hello
> . While working on [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC
I wanted to check the original issue, but the linked patch adds a
boolean GUC (logical_replication_fallback_to_full_identity), I did not
see enum mentioned anywhere in the diff, did you link the correct
thread?
> Ideally, such a check wou
s://postgr.es/m/caeowx2mmorbmwjkbt4ycsjdyl3r9mp+z0bbk57vz+okjtgj...@mail.gmail.com
>
> --
> Chao Li (Evan)
> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
> https://www.highgo.com/
> From 3c2c25d19da3b39f57c7d04b17077e015aa82758 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Chao Li (Evan)"
> Date: Mo
On 15.12.25 10:16, Chao Li wrote:
The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While
working on [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC and made a copy-and-paste
mistake, assigning the same numeric value to two different enum entries.
This resulted in confusing runtime behavior and cost m
Hi Hackers,
The motivation for this patch comes from my own experience. While working
on [1]. I added an enum-typed GUC and made a copy-and-paste mistake,
assigning the same numeric value to two different enum entries. This
resulted in confusing runtime behavior and cost me about an hour to track
