| From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses |
| Date: | 2026-09-14 13:52:32 |
| Message-ID: | TY4PR01MB1771860516F5316ECB8CD275494BB2@TY4PR01MB17718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Monday, September 14, 2026 12:29 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The attached patches have the changes for the same.
> v1-0001-Distinguish-publication-exclusions-in-object-addr.patch is the same
> Fujii Masao-san's patch from [2]. The comment fixes are present in
> v1-0002-Review-comment-fixes.patch which is a top-up patch on top of Fujii
> Masao-san's patch.
Thanks for sharing the patches.
I have one question for 0001:
The changes in pg_get_object_address() look a bit hacky to me. Instead of
hard-coding a string comparison and adding a special branch to handle the
excluded publication relation, wouldn't it be more standard to introduce a new
object type, such as OBJECT_PUBLICATION_EXCLUDED_REL? I think that would make
the code more elegant, and we could pass the object type directly to
get_object_address_publication_rel() instead of using a Boolean flag. That said, are
there any reasons we cannot add a new object type?
Best Regards,
Zhijie Hou
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2026-09-14 13:52:41 | Re: FOR PORTION OF code review |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-09-14 13:48:38 | Re: Offline data checksum changes can cause incorrect checksum state on standbys |