Re: Possible bug in logical replication. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Arseny Sher
Subject Re: Possible bug in logical replication.
Date
Msg-id 87po04j12t.fsf@ars-thinkpad
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible bug in logical replication.  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Possible bug in logical replication.
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:31:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
>> gathered here?  Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
>> of words and comments you think is most adapted as the primary author of
>> the feature.
>
> I have seen no patch, so attached is one to finally close the loop and
> this open item, which includes both my suggestions and what Arseny has
> mentioned based on the latest emails exchanged.  Any objections to that?

I'm practically happy with this.

>  * while confirmed_lsn is used as base point for the decoding context.

This line is excessive as now we have comment below saying it doesn't
matter.

--
Arseny Sher
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees