| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: [BUG]Invalidate relcache when setting REPLICA IDENTITY |
| Date: | 2021-11-12 06:10:07 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB571602C82CEFA55470B6BBB794959@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice in the case
> > (change Replica Identity from Nothing to some index) you mentioned in
> > the previous email?
> >
>
> Oh, I see the point. I think this is okay because
> AddRelcacheInvalidationMessage doesn't allow to add duplicate rel
> invalidation. If that is the case I wonder why not simply register
> invalidation without any check in the for loop as was the case with
> Tang's original patch?
OK, I also think the code in Tang's original patch is fine.
Attach the patch which register invalidation without any check in the for loop.
Best regards,
Hou zj
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Invalidate-relcache-entry-when-changing-REPLICA-IDEN.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-12 06:23:34 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-12 05:32:55 | Re: [BUG]Invalidate relcache when setting REPLICA IDENTITY |