| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump crash due to incomplete ordering of DO_SUBSCRIPTION_REL objects |
| Date: | 2025-12-18 12:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm2eHvEu5q9grvJKdiaf0dWtbPZhz3BP3BNV=ADN6Moh6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 at 14:05, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2025, at 03:51, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 10:11:58AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> >> The attached v3 version patch has the changes for the same.
> >
> > The "tag" variable needed a change to compensate for the subrinfo->dobj.name
> > change. I plan to push the attached version.
> > <DO_SUBSCRIPTION_REL-v4.patch>
>
> v4 looks solid. A couple of nitpicks:
>
> 1
> ```
> + SubRelInfo *srobj1 = *(SubRelInfo *const *) p1;
> + SubRelInfo *srobj2 = *(SubRelInfo *const *) p2;
> ```
>
> These two temp pointers can be const, like:
> ```
> const SubRelInfo *srobj1 = *(SubRelInfo *const *) p1;
> const SubRelInfo *srobj2 = *(SubRelInfo *const *) p2;
> ```
I felt the way it is handled in the patch is ok and consistent with
the other variables used in this function.
> 2
> ```
> + /* Sort by subscription name, since (namespace, name) match the rel */
> ```
>
> This comment is correct, but sounds a little insider-ish. Maybe:
>
> /* Tiebreak by subscription name; (namespace, name) already identify the table */
Similarly here too, it is inline with similar comments of other enums
in this function.
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-12-18 12:11:24 | Re: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2025-12-18 12:00:12 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |