From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ignore heap rewrites for materialized views in logical replication |
Date: | 2022-06-01 05:09:13 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JRhCXVg2jnw1ieNapdLH4e9PcE8LbzXLft5jOm4CbAvQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 8:28 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 11:13 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I think we don't need the retry logical to check error, a simple
> wait_for_caught_up should be sufficient as we are doing in other
> tests. See attached. I have slightly modified the commit message as
> well. Kindly let me know what you think?
>
> Your modification will hang until the test timeout without the patch. That's
> why I avoided to use wait_for_caught_up and used a loop for fast exit on success
> or failure.
>
Right, but that is true for other tests as well and we are not
expecting to face this/other errors. I think keeping it simple and
similar to other tests seems enough for this case.
> I'm fine with a simple test case like you proposed.
>
Thanks, I'll push this in a day or two unless I see any other
suggestions/comments. Note to others: this is v10 fix only. As
mentioned by Euler in his initial email, this is not required from v11
onwards due to a different solution for this problem via commit
325f2ec555.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-06-01 05:19:17 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-01 04:59:06 | Re: convert libpq uri-regress tests to tap test |