On 3/14/22 13:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the fix does not address tablesync, as explained in [1]. I'm not
>> sure what to do about it - in principle, we could calculate which
>> relations to sync, and then eliminate "duplicates" (i.e. relations where
>> we are going to sync an ancestor).
>>
>
> As mentioned in my previous email [1], this appears to be a base code
> issue (even without row filter or column filter work), so it seems
> better to deal with it separately. It has been reported separately as
> well [2] where we found some similar issues.
>
Right. I don't want to be waiting for that fix either, that'd block this
patch unnecessarily. If there are no other comments, I'll go ahead,
polish the existing patches a bit more and get them committed. We can
worry about this pre-existing issue later.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
