On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:05 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 7:06 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > Since the patch
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 7:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > > Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the
> memory leak.
> > >
> > > The
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:05 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > > Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the
> > > memory leak.
> > >
> > > The bug
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:09 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the memory
> > leak.
> >
> > The bug exists on PG10 ~ PG15(HEAD).
> >
> > For HEAD,PG14,PG13, to fix the
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 12:02 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> Since the patch has been committed. Attach the last patch to fix the memory
> leak.
>
> The bug exists on PG10 ~ PG15(HEAD).
>
> For HEAD,PG14,PG13, to fix the memory leak, I think we should use
> free_attrmap instead of pfree
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:49 PM Amit Kapila
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:50 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > Attached a patch containing the above to consider as an alternative.
> >
>
> Thanks, the patch looks good
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:08 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:21 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > I agree it's an old bug. A partition map entry's localrel may point
> > to a stale Relation pointer, because once the caller had closed the
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:49 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:50 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > Attached a patch containing the above to consider as an alternative.
> >
>
> Thanks, the patch
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:50 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
>
> Attached a patch containing the above to consider as an alternative.
>
Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I'll push this after doing some testing.
--
With Regards,
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:21 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:29 PM Amit Kapila :
> > > After pushing this patch, buildfarm member prion has failed.
> > >
>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:29 PM Amit Kapila :
> > After pushing this patch, buildfarm member prion has failed.
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=prion=HE
> > AD
> >
> > It seems to me that the problem
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:29 PM Amit Kapila :
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:49 AM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it should spell out REPLICA IDENTITY explicitly to avoid the
> > > commit being confused to have to do
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:49 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think it should spell out REPLICA IDENTITY explicitly to avoid the
> > commit being confused to have to do with "Referential Integrity
> > checking".
> >
>
> This makes sense.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 7:49 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:46 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > One minor comment:
> > > + /*
> > > + * If it is a partitioned table, we don't check it, we will check its
> > > + *
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 3:46 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > One minor comment:
> > + /*
> > + * If it is a partitioned table, we don't check it, we will check its
> > + * partition later.
> > + */
> >
> > Can we change the above comment to:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 1:33 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:22 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:06 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached the new version of patch set. I also moved the partitioned table
> > > check
> > > in
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:22 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:06 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached the new version of patch set. I also moved the partitioned table
> > check
> > in logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable() to check_relation_updatable() as
> >
On Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:06 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> Attached the new version of patch set. I also moved the partitioned table
> check
> in logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable() to check_relation_updatable() as
> discussed
> [2].
>
Attached back-branch patches of the first patch.
Regards,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 2:13 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:07 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 8:30 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > I have pushed the first bug-fix patch today.
> >
> > Attached the remaining patches which are rebased.
>
>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:24 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > > > @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:24 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@ apply_handle_insert_internal(ApplyExecutionData
> > > *edata,
> > > static void
> > >
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@ apply_handle_insert_internal(ApplyExecutionData
> > *edata,
> > static void
> > check_relation_updatable(LogicalRepRelMapEntry *rel)
> > {
> > + /*
> > +*
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@ apply_handle_insert_internal(ApplyExecutionData *edata,
> static void
> check_relation_updatable(LogicalRepRelMapEntry *rel)
> {
> + /*
> +* If it is a partitioned table, we don't check it, we will check its
>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:30 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:43 AM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > > + * Don't throw any error here just mark the relation entry as not
> > > updatable,
> > > + * as replica identity is
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:43 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> > + * Don't throw any error here just mark the relation entry as not
> > updatable,
> > + * as replica identity is only for updates and deletes but inserts can be
> > + * replicated even
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:43 AM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:07 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I have pushed the first bug-fix patch today.
> >
> > Attached the remaining patches which are rebased.
>
> Thanks.
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:07 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I have pushed the first bug-fix patch today.
>
> Attached the remaining patches which are rebased.
Thanks.
Comments on v9-0001:
+ * Don't throw any error here just mark the
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 8:30 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have pushed the first bug-fix patch today.
>
Thanks.
Attached the remaining patches which are rebased.
Regards,
Shi yu
v9-0002-fix-memory-leak-about-attrmap.patch
Description: v9-0002-fix-memory-leak-about-attrmap.patch
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 8:52 AM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 8:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > v4-0002 looks good btw, except the bitpick about test comment similar
> > > to my earlier comment regarding v5-0001:
> > >
> > > +# Change the column order of table on
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 8:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > v4-0002 looks good btw, except the bitpick about test comment similar
> > to my earlier comment regarding v5-0001:
> >
> > +# Change the column order of table on publisher
> >
> > I think it might be better to say something specific to
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:57 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:02 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > > +# Change the column order of table on publisher
> > I think it might be better to say something specific to describe the
> > test intent, like:
> >
> > Test that replication into
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 1:02 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:31 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I think we can do that way as well but do you see any benefit in it?
> > > The way I am suggesting will avoid the effort of
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 2:18 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:26 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> > wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 13, 2022 1:53 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > I have separated out the bug-fix for the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:31 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I think we can do that way as well but do you see any benefit in it?
> > The way I am suggesting will avoid the effort of updating the remote
> > rel copy till we try to access that
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 6:14 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 10:36 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 1:53 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > I have separated out the bug-fix for the subscriber-side.
> > And fix the typo and function name.
> > Attach the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:03 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 1:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have separated out the bug-fix for the subscriber-side.
> And fix the typo and function name.
> Attach the new version patch set.
>
The first patch looks good to me. I
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:20 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 10:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> > >
> > > I wonder why not call this logicalrep_partmap_update() to go with
> > >
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 10:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
> >
> > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> >
> > I wonder why not call this logicalrep_partmap_update() to go with
> > logicalrep_relmap_update()? It seems confusing to have
> >
On Monday, June 13, 2022 1:53 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 2:36 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 11, 2022 9:36 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 2:36 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 9:36 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> > >
> > > I wonder why not call this
On Saturday, June 11, 2022 9:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote
> wrote:
> >
> > +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
> >
> > I wonder why not call this logicalrep_partmap_update() to go with
> > logicalrep_relmap_update()? It seems confusing to have
> >
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote wrote:
>
> +logicalrep_partmap_invalidate
>
> I wonder why not call this logicalrep_partmap_update() to go with
> logicalrep_relmap_update()? It seems confusing to have
> logicalrep_partmap_invalidate() right next to
>
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 5:47 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> I saw a problem in logical replication, when the target table on subscriber
> is a
> partitioned table, it only checks whether the Replica Identity of partitioned
> table is consistent with the publisher, and
On Thu, June 9, 2022 7:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I think one approach to fix it is to check the target partition in this
> > case,
> > instead of the partitioned table.
> >
>
> This approach sounds reasonable to me. One minor point:
> +/*
> + * Check that replica identity matches.
> + *
>
Hi Amit,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:17 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
> wrote:
> > I saw a problem in logical replication, when the target table on subscriber
> > is a
> > partitioned table, it only checks whether the Replica Identity of
> >
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:17 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> I saw a problem in logical replication, when the target table on subscriber
> is a
> partitioned table, it only checks whether the Replica Identity of partitioned
> table is consistent with the publisher, and doesn't check Replica
47 matches
Mail list logo
