025 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 2:06 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > postgres=# create subscription sub2 connection 'dbname
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 2:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I agree. So, following the above points and some off-list discussions, I have
> revised the option to be a subscription option in the V60 version.
>
Thank You for the patches. Tried to test the new sub-level parameter,
have few comme
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 8:52 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While testing the replication slot synchronization feature, I set up
> three instances on the same machine:
>
> - Physical replication primary (also Logical replication publisher)
> - Physical replication standby
> - Logical replicatio
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:58 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > So logically for PostgreSQL its an
> > > user table but yeah
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 10:10 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:09 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > Here is V57 patch set which addressed most of comments.
> >
> > In this version, I also fixed a bug that the apply worker continued to find
> > dead
> > tuples e
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:50 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> An issue occurred during the initial switchover using PostgreSQL version
> 17.5. The setup consists of a cluster with two nodes, managed by Patroni
> version 4.0.5.
> Logical replication is configured on the same instance, and the
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:43 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks Shveta for your opinion on the design.
>
> > > On Tue, Aug 5
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 3:30 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find a few comments on v6:
> >
> > 1)
> > +/*
> > + * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
> &
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:05 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration'
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> > approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> plain text log files for conflict details is inefficient. 2) Lack of
> structured data, key conflict
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 4:29 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
>
> 1)
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
1)
* If 'resync_all_sequences' is false:
* Add or remove tables and sequences that have been added to or removed
Please find a few comments on v6:
1)
+/*
+ * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
+ * must be called ONCE during postmaster or standalone-backend startup,
+ * before initializing replication slots.
+ */
+void
+StartupLogicalDecodingStatus(bool last_status)
The comme
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 6:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I've attached the updated version patch.
>
Thank You for the patch. The patch does not apply to the latest head
due to conflict with slot-sync fix (commit-Id: 4614d53d).
thanks
Shveta
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 7:35 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:38 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
>
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sawada-san,
> >
> > > I thought we could fix this issue by checking the number of in-use
> > > logical slots while holding ReplicationSlotControlLock and
> > > L
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 5)
> > I tried a test where there were 4 slots on the publisher, where one
> > was getting used while the others were not. Initiated
> > pg_sync_
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:16 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for confirming. Here is V56 patch set which addressed all the
> comments including the comments from Amit[1] and Shveta[2].
>
> I have merged V55-0002 into 0001 and updated the list of author
> and reviewers based on my knowle
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:02 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Patch v3 attached.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
>
>
> 1)
> it hit
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Patch v3 attached.
>
Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
1)
it hits an assert
(slotsync_reread_config()-->Assert(sync_replication_slots)) when API
is trying to sync and is in wait loop while in another session,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:49 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2025 5:26 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is th
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> This is the V54 patch set, with only patch 0001 updated to address the latest
> comments.
>
Thanks for the patch.
While performing tests on the latest patch, I found an assert in
tablesync worker in FindDeletedTupleInLocalRel (se
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 11:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> > changes for the same.
> >
> Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> changes for the same.
>
Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
1)
WARNING: WITH clause parameters do not affect sequence synchronization
a)
How about:
WITH cl
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 11:45 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for testing the patch!
>
> I've reworked the locking part in the patch. The attached v4 patch
> should address all review comments including your previous
> comments[1].
>
Thank You for the patch. I have not reviewed fully, but
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
> >
>
> Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, bu
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
>
Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, but please find a few
comments on 001:
1)
IsIndexUsableForFindingDeletedTuple()
We first have:
+ /*
+ * A frozen transaction ID in
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 12:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2)
> > >
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 7:17 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 6:46 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> > Thinking out loud, when cleaning up after a backend or background
> > worker crash, process_pm_child_exit() is invoked, which sub
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
>
> 2)
> + if (MySubscription->retaindeadtuples &&
> + FindMostRecentlyDeletedTupleInfo(localrel, remoteslot,
> +
> &conflicttuple.xmin,
> +
&g
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 2:39 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 6:58 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:51 AM cca5507 wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The v1-0002 in [1] will call ReportBa
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 12:53 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2025 12:08 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 3:51 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've reviewed the 0001 patch and it looks good to me.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, I have pushed the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 5:03 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree. The main patch focuses on the part where we
> automatically change the effective WAL level upon the logical slot
> creation and deletion (and potentially remove 'logical' from
> wal_level), and other things are implemented as
I further tested inherited tables flow as well wrt ONLY and EXCEPT, it
works well. But while reading docs for the saem, I have few concerns.
1)
While explaining ONLY for EXCEPT, create-publication doc says this
+ This does not apply to a partitioned table, however. The partitions of
+
Shlok, I was trying to validate the interaction of
'publish_via_partition_root' with 'EXCEPT". Found some unexpected
behaviour, can you please review:
Pub:
-
CREATE TABLE tab_root (range_col int,i int,j int) PARTITION BY RANGE
(range_col);
CREATE TABLE tab_part_1 PARTITION OF tab_root FOR
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 16:25, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few more comments on 002:
> >
> > 5)
> > +GetAllTablesPublicationRelations(Oid pubid, bool pubviaroot)
> > {
> >
&
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 16:25, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few more comments on 002:
> >
> > 5)
> > +GetAllTablesPublicationRelations(Oid pubid, bool pubviaroot)
> > {
> >
&
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 11:15, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 3. Some of the syntaxes works for sequence which doesn't make sense to
> > > me, as listed below, I think there are mor
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I am slightly hesitant to introduce multiple ways to enable logical
> decoding/replication unless that is the only path as giving multiple
> options to achieve the same thing can confuse users as to which one is
> preferable and pros/cons of
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:15 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> 3. Some of the syntaxes works for sequence which doesn't make sense to
> me, as listed below, I think there are more
>
> postgres[154731]=# CREATE PUBLICATION insert_only FOR ALL SEQUENCES
> WITH (publish = 'insert');
> CREATE PUBLICATION
>
>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:23 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > &
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:31 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:25 AM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay. I see your point. Yes, it was non-blocking earlier but
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:52 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:45 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> &g
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not able to apply the patch to the latest head or even to a week
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:56 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 4:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 6:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I think that even with retai
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:51 AM cca5507 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The v1-0002 in [1] will call ReportBackgroundWorkerExit() which will send
> SIGUSR1 to 'bgw_notify_pid', but it may already exit in HandleChildCrash(),
> is this ok?
>
Shall ReportBackgroundWorkerExit() be skipped for 'crashed' backgrou
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > I am not able to apply the patch to the latest head or even to a week
> > back version. Can you please check and rebase?
> >
> > thanks
> > Shveta
>
> Rebased.
>
Thanks. Please find a few comments:
1)
/* Any slot with NULL in these field
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:00 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:56 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few comments:
> >
> > 1)
> > When the API is waiting for the primary to advance, standby fails to
> > handle promotion requests. Promot
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:37 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached updated patches that implement the idea we've discussed.
> The patches still need to be polished but the implemented ideas seem
> good. Feedback is very welcome.
>
Thank You for the patches. I just tried my hands on ptach00
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 2:56 PM cca5507 wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> I found the $SUBJECT, the main reason is that RegisteredBgWorker::rw_pid has
> not been cleaned.
>
> Attach a patch to fix it.
>
Thank You for reporting this. The problem exists and the patch works
as expected.
In the patch, we
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:03 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 14:26, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 4:11 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > SyncFetchRelationStates:
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:08 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> Thanks for your README questions.
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 1:46 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thank You for working on this. I started going through the README and
> > tried run
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 4:11 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> > 3)
> > SyncFetchRelationStates:
> > Earlier the name was FetchTableStates. If we really want to use the
> > 'Sync' keyword, we can name it FetchRelationSyncStates, as we are
> > fetching sync-status only. Thoughts?
>
> Instead of FetchRelatio
Thank You for working on this. I started going through the README and
tried running simple tests, have few concerns:
1)
I am not able to understand section 4.2 'WOS-to-ROS conversion'. When
whiteout-WOS says 'delete 4', what does that mean? 4 is CRID, TXID?
And when does delete-vector X represents
Please find a few more comments on July4 patch
6)
+
+ To synchronize sequences from a publisher to a subscriber, first publish
+ them using
+ CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR ALL SEQUENCES.
+
This sentence looks odd, as we have 'first' but no follow-up sentence
after that. Can we please comb
Please find few more comments:
1)
In pg_sync_replication_slots() doc, we have this:
"Note that this function is primarily intended for testing and
debugging purposes and should be used with caution. Additionally, this
function cannot be executed if "
We can get rid of this info as well and
On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 7:29 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 4:03 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:00 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:53 AM shveta malik
> &g
On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 8:33 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 3:32 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 9:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 1:07 PM shveta malik
> > > wro
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:00 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:53 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > > I couldn't figure out whether the query on primary to fetch all the
> > > slots to be synchron
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 2:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 3:53 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 15:20, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM Nisha Moond
> > > wrote:
> > > >
>
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 3:53 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 15:20, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM Nisha Moond
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Please find the attached v20250630 patch set addressing above comments
> >
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:42 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:23 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > How about this:
> > > We change the following sentence in the third paragraph
> > > To confirm that the standby server is indeed ready for failover > > addition> so that
Few more concerns:
4)
In UpdateSubscriptionRelState():
if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup))
elog(ERROR, "subscription table %u in subscription %u
does not exist",
relid, subid);
table-->relation as now it can be hit for both sequence and table.
5)
In Logic
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:32 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 5:50 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 12:36 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 10:50 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > wrote:
>
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 9:46 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 1:07 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:06 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the comments!
> > >
> > > &g
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Creating this thread for a POC based on discussions in thread [1].
> Hou-san had created this patch, and I just cleaned up some documents,
> did some testing and now sharing the patch here.
>
> In this patch, the pg_sync_replicatio
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 10:50 AM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The failover slots documentation [1] is good for PG - PG logical
> replication, but the first two queries require pg_subscription which
> may not be present in non-PG downstream. Somebody looking to setup
> failover slots for no
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Please find the attached v20250630 patch set addressing above comments
> and other comments in [1],[2],[3] and [4].
Thanks for the patches. I am still in process of reviewing it but
please find few comments:
1)
+ if (pset.sversion >= 18)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Tab-completion is not supported after a comma (,) in any other cases.
> For example, the following commands are valid, but tab-completion does
> not work after the comma:
>
> CREATE PUBLICATION pub7 FOR TABLE t1, TABLES IN SCHEMA public;
> CRE
Hi,
I found the wrong function name mentioned in the comment atop
PublicationPartOpt.
Comment wrongly mentioned the function name GetRelationPublications()
for PublicationPartOpt usage instead of GetPublicationRelations().
Corrected the comment.
thanks
Shveta
v1-0001-Comment-correction-atop-Pu
Few more comments on 002:
5)
+GetAllTablesPublicationRelations(Oid pubid, bool pubviaroot)
{
+ List*exceptlist;
+
+ exceptlist = GetPublicationRelations(pubid, PUBLICATION_PART_ALL);
a) Here, we are assuming that the list provided by
GetPublicationRelations() will be except-tables list onl
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 3:44 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 15:27, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:48 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> > >
> > > I have included the changes for
> > > it in v14-0003 patch.
> > >
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:16 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:20 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 7:58 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 4:28 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:31 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the comments. All of them look good
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 7:42 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 at 08:05, vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 11:26, Nisha Moond wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here are my review comments for v20250610 patches:
> > >
> > > Patch-0005:sequencesync.c
> > >
> > > 1) report
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 9:48 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> I have included the changes for
> it in v14-0003 patch.
>
Thanks for the patches. I have reviewed patch001 alone, please find
few comments:
1)
+
+ The RESET clause will reset the publication to the
+ default state which includes resetti
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:20 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 09:15:04AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 2:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > &g
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:31 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments. All of them look good to me and
> have been addressed in V42.
>
Thank You for the patches. Few comments.
t/035_conflicts.pl:
1)
Both the subscriptions subname_BA and subname_AB have rci enabled
during CREAT
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 4:20 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is the V40 patch set
Thanks for the patches. Few comments:
1)
In get_subscription_info(), we are doing COUNT of rci-subscriptions
using below query:
SELECT count(*) AS nsub, COUNT(CASE WHEN subretainconflictinfo THEN 1
END) A
>
> Here is the V41 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Thanks for the patches. Few trivial things:
1)
In ReplicationSlotAcquire(), does it make more sense to move the error
after checking the slot's existence first? If a user is trying to use
a slot which does not exist, he should
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 6:44 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
>
> 1. Initially, I have created a publication on sequence s1.
> postgres=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR ALL SEQUENCES;
> CREATE PUBLICATION
> postgres=# ALTER PUBLICATION pub1 SET TABLE t1;
> ALTER PUBLICATION
> postgres=# \d s1
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 2:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:13:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 7:01 PM Bertran
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 2:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:13:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 7:01 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 05:10:37PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > >
>
> Thanks for the comment, the attached v20250622 version patch has the
> changes for the same.
>
Thanks for the patches, I am not done with review yet, but please find
the feedback so far:
1)
+ if (!OidIsValid(seq_relid))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
+
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 1:41 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Given the discussion so far, it seems we might want to have a
> safeguard to prevent the effective_wal_level from being dropped to
> 'replica' if the last logical slot is accidentally dropped.
Yes, needed for cases where standby or cascad
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 09:48:47AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 2:30 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if a way to address the concerns th
>
> Here is the V39 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Few trivial comments:
1)
Currently we have this error and detail:
ERROR: Enabling retain_conflict_info requires "wal_level" >= "replica"
DETAIL: A replication slot must be created to retain conflict information.
Shall we ch
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 4:34 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is the V38 patch set which includes the following changes:
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches. Few comments:
>
> 1)
> +
> +Note that commit timestamps and origin data retain
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 2:30 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> I wonder if a way to address the concerns that we shared above is to use a
> mixed approach like:
>
> - Forget the immediately_reserve idea
> - If a user creates a logical slot then we automatically switch to wal_level =
> logical (if not
>
> Here is the V38 patch set which includes the following changes:
>
Thank You for the patches. Few comments:
1)
+
+Note that commit timestamps and origin data retained by enabling the
+retain_conflict_info
+option will not be preserved during the upgrade. As a
+result, the up
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 5:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 9:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BTW have we addressed the point Amit mentioned befo
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:00:55PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > > > > > 0001 patch allows us to create a logical slot without WAL
> > > > > > > reservation.
>
> Thanks for the patch and sorry to be late in this conversatio
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 6:06 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for the comments!
>
> >
> > 2)
> > I see that when primary switches back its effective wal_level to
> > replica while standby has wal_level=logical in conf file, then standby
> > has this status:
> >
> > postgres=# show wal_level
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> This whole paragraph sounds like a duplicate of its previous section,
> and the line alignment in the first paragraph has some issues.
>
Sorry for the wrong upload, duplicacy was the merge issue. Removed the
duplicate paragraph and corrected
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:31 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I think it's the user's responsibility to keep at least one logical
> slot. It seems that setting wal_level to 'logical' would be the most
> reliable solution for this case. We might want to provide a way to
> keep 'logical' WAL level some
1 - 100 of 595 matches
Mail list logo
