| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Table refer leak in logical replication |
| Date: | 2021-04-21 00:31:34 |
| Message-ID: | YH9xr7GcnoOv7wLg@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 06:20:03PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> +1. I think it makes sense to add a test case especially because we
> don't have any existing test in this area.
Yes, let's add add something into 013_partition.pl within both
subscriber1 and subscriber2. This will not catch up the relation
leak, but it is better to make sure that the trigger is fired as we'd
like to expect. This will become helpful if this code gets refactored
or changed in the future. What about adding an extra table inserted
into by the trigger itself? If I were to design that, I would insert
the following information that gets checked by a simple psql call once
the changes are applied in the subscriber: relation name, TG_WHEN,
TG_OP and TG_LEVEL. So such a table would need at least 4 columns.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-04-21 00:46:49 | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-04-21 00:30:56 | Re: Privilege boundary between sysadmin and database superuser [Was: Re: pg_amcheck option to install extension] |