Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
Date: 2022-04-28 03:17:16
Message-ID: CAA4eK1Kv8ypGbzkCa8srKx2c1z+wF1w5_cOO7u0Zj8ij+V22EQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:26 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> so I've been looking at tweaking the code so that the behavior matches
> Alvaro's expectations. It passes check-world but I'm not claiming it's
> nowhere near commitable - the purpose is mostly to give better idea of
> how invasive the change is etc.
>

I was just skimming through the patch and didn't find anything related
to initial sync handling. I feel the behavior should be same for
initial sync and replication.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-04-28 05:56:01 Re: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2022-04-28 03:11:37 Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect.