On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:12:07AM +, Ilyasov Ian wrote:
> > It seems to me that we should keep the 'for replication target relation
> "public.tbl" in transaction \d+,', before the "finished at" so as it
> is possible to make a difference with the context that has a column
> name and the
> It seems to me that we should keep the 'for replication target relation
"public.tbl" in transaction \d+,', before the "finished at" so as it
is possible to make a difference with the context that has a column
name and the context where there is no target relation.
I agree. Attached the updated
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 02:24:37PM +, Ilyasov Ian wrote:
> I corrected my patch according to what I think
> Michael wanted. I attached the new patch to the letter.
Thanks for compiling this patch. Yes, that's the idea.
- qr/processing remote data for replication origin \"pg_\d+\"
Dear Michael, Amit, Hayato
I corrected my patch according to what I think
Michael wanted. I attached the new patch to the letter.
--
Kind regards,
Ian Ilyasov.
Junior Software Developer at Postgres Professional
0002-Fix-subscription-029_on_error.pl-test-when-wal_debug.patch
Description:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 5:25 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:00:47AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This can only be a problem if the apply worker generates more LOG
> > entries with the required context but it won't do that unless there is
> > an operation on the
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:00:47AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This can only be a problem if the apply worker generates more LOG
> entries with the required context but it won't do that unless there is
> an operation on the publisher to replicate. If we see any such danger
> then I agree this can
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 3:43 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:58:18PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I guess it could be more work if we want to enhance the test for
> > ERRORs other than the primary key violation.
>
> And? You could pass the ERROR string expected as
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:58:18PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I guess it could be more work if we want to enhance the test for
> ERRORs other than the primary key violation.
And? You could pass the ERROR string expected as argument of the
function if more flexibility is wanted at some point,
Dear Hayato,
> I made a patch for confirmation purpose. This worked well on my environment.
> Ian, how about you?
I checked this patch on my environment. It also works well.
I like this change, but as I see it makes a different approach from Michael's
advice.
Honesly, I do not know what would
Dear Amit, Ian,
> I guess it could be more work if we want to enhance the test for
> ERRORs other than the primary key violation. One simple fix is to
> update the log_offset to the location of the LOG after successful
> replication of un-conflicted data. For example, the Log location after
> we
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:26 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:22:29AM +, Ilyasov Ian wrote:
> > Hello, hackers!
> >
> > Recently I've been building postgres with different cflags and cppflags.
> > And suddenly on REL_15_STABLE, REL_16_STABLE and master
> > I faced a
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:22:29AM +, Ilyasov Ian wrote:
> Hello, hackers!
>
> Recently I've been building postgres with different cflags and cppflags.
> And suddenly on REL_15_STABLE, REL_16_STABLE and master
> I faced a failure of a src/test/subscription/t/029_on_error.pl test when
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
