On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 at 06:31, Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2026-08-03 at 16:06 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Right, that is possible. In such a scenario, the current behavior of > > the apply-worker appears okay to me. Anyway, the feature > > disable_on_error is for the user to evaluate/analyze the current > > ERROR > > and accordingly take the next action. In this case, she can enable > > the > > subscription again. > > That makes sense to me. > > > > Or, perhaps these are just edge cases, and part (b) is not very > > > important? > > > > > > > I think so. We don't need to do anything for part (b). > > Agreed. > > > BTW, shall we add a detailed comment as to why we separate the load > > of > > connection info from other subscription parameters for future readers > > on the following lines: > > Done using your wording in v4-0001. > > New v4 series attached. > Hi Jeff,
I have tested the patches and confirm that the issue reported by me in [1] is addressed. Also, I tested for the issue reported by Kuroda-san in [2]. And confirm that it is also addressed. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANhcyEU9VsaLwo908ws_1MxNB79f%2Bcr-JVfig%3DZoaf4%2BKQe%2BGQ%40mail.gmail.com [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/os9pr01mb12149c3ed34272966b25db173f5...@os9pr01mb12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Thanks, Shlok Kyal
