On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 7:58 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 7:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 6. > > > @@ -1583,7 +1649,8 @@ apply_handle_insert(StringInfo s) > > > TupleTableSlot *remoteslot; > > > MemoryContext oldctx; > > > > > > - if (handle_streamed_transaction(LOGICAL_REP_MSG_INSERT, s)) > > > + if (is_skipping_changes() || > > > > > > Is there a reason to keep the skip_changes check here and in other DML > > > operations instead of at one central place in apply_dispatch? > > > > Since we already have the check of applying the change on the spot at > > the beginning of the handlers I feel it's better to add > > is_skipping_changes() to the check than add a new if statement to > > apply_dispatch, but do you prefer to check it in one central place in > > apply_dispatch? > > > > I think either way is fine. I just wanted to know the reason, your > current change looks okay to me. > > Some questions/comments > ====================== >
Some cosmetic suggestions: ====================== 1. +# Create subscriptions. Both subscription sets disable_on_error to on +# so that they get disabled when a conflict occurs. +$node_subscriber->safe_psql( + 'postgres', + qq[ +CREATE SUBSCRIPTION $subname CONNECTION '$publisher_connstr' PUBLICATION tap_pub WITH (streaming = on, two_phase = on, disable_on_error = on); +]); I don't understand what you mean by 'Both subscription ...' in the above comments. 2. + # Check the log indicating that successfully skipped the transaction, How about slightly rephrasing this to: "Check the log to ensure that the transaction is skipped...."? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
