Re: Log prefix missing for subscriber log messages received from publisher

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Log prefix missing for subscriber log messages received from publisher
Date: 2025-07-21 01:14:43
Message-ID: 3dbe69f3-e1ce-442d-a978-dd016a38c592@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2025/07/19 15:45, vignesh C wrote:
>> Also, I don't see why there are three patches here instead of just one.
>
> Earlier we thought to commit replication changes function firstlly and
> then commit dblink and fdw changes, but now that we are using a common
> notice receiver function. I feel it can be a single patch.

Yes, I initially suggested splitting the patches for that reason,
but I agree it's better to merge them into a single patch now that
we're using a shared custom notice receiver.

> Merged the
> patches. The attached v7 version patch has the changes for the same.

Thanks for updating the patch! It looks good to me, except for one minor point:

static inline PGresult *libpqsrv_get_result(PGconn *conn, uint32 wait_event_info);
+static inline void libpqsrv_notice_receiver(void *arg, const PGresult *res);

This prototype is only needed if the function is used earlier in libpq-be-fe-helpers.h,
but that's not the case here, so I don't think it's necessary.

Unless there are objections, I'll remove that prototype and commit the patch.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message feichanghong 2025-07-21 01:58:09 Re: Even when the data is already ordered, MergeAppend still adds a Sort node
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-07-21 00:59:04 Re: index prefetching