| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Date: | 2021-12-01 06:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB571603F90202D6709B5DF5B594689@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 1:23 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > If so, the result from the second check_sql is unstable and it's
> > > probably better to check the result only once. That is, the first
> > > check_sql includes the command and we exit from the function once we
> > > confirm the error entry is expectedly updated.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I think that should be fine.
>
> Okay, I've attached an updated patch. Please review it.
>
I agreed that checking the result only once makes the test more stable.
The patch looks good to me.
Best regards,
Hou zj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-12-01 06:37:45 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Amul Sul | 2021-12-01 06:19:05 | Re: Update stale code comment in CheckpointerMain() |