| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, YeXiu <1518981153(at)qq(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Date: | 2026-04-01 02:15:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LG9ezz2QHMfaAKeWqCaRLRaDtu6-kBgrCRq14UaB3ECA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 6:13 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 8:30 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > Thanks for the comments. This is addressed in the 002 patch attached.
> > The 001 patch has the rebased version of the patch at [1] to fix
> > Peter's earlier comments at [2].
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0mYT55pjdyN-yY%3D5dSOfMVx307CtP3xYqzWVa0MPRtLQ%40mail.gmail.com
> > [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPvw-XNBnW-ymGdWpLxaEime7_EdOihcUheGyZvw73kcgg%40mail.gmail.com
> >
>
> Hi Vignesh.
>
> Thanks for following up on my outstanding review comments.
>
> //////
> Patch 0001 - Fix few issues in commit fd366065e0
>
> This did not address the review comment 3a about the redundant macro
> '_("\"%s\"")', but that one might be better handled in a separate
> thread anyway. I can post a separate thread for that one later.
>
Yes, as it uses an existing code as an example, it is better to start
a separate thread. I was planning to do some research by myself after
finishing the pending tasks here but feel free to start if you have
formed your thoughts on it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wenhui qiu | 2026-04-01 02:19:09 | Re: Fix HAVING-to-WHERE pushdown with nondeterministic collations |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-04-01 02:15:09 | bufmgr: pass through I/O stats context in FlushUnlockedBuffer() |