RE: pg_get_publication_tables() output duplicate relid

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: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: pg_get_publication_tables() output duplicate relid
Date: 2021-11-25 01:57:01
Message-ID: OS0PR01MB5716DD832E8B50891204E9A594629@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 4:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > > As in,
> > > > do we know of any replication (initial/streaming) misbehavior
> > > > caused by the duplicate partition OIDs in this case or is the only
> > > > problem that pg_publication_tables output looks odd?
> > >
> > > The latter one but I think either we should document this or change
> > > it as we can't assume users will follow what subscriber-side code does.
> >
> > On second thought, I agree that de-duplicating partitions from this
> > view is an improvement.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Hou-San, Can you please submit the updated patch after fixing
> any pending comments including the test case?

OK, I will submit the updated patch soon.

Best regards,
Hou zj

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-11-25 02:51:24 RE: [BUG]Missing REPLICA IDENTITY check when DROP NOT NULL
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2021-11-25 01:15:59 Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)