Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KMpaOTXiVnxJ73ExeJarG=hgheQrTw2LyAgDwJV1wvNA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:37 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the latest patches that incorporated all comments I got
> so far. Please review them.
>

I am not able to apply the latest patch
(v6-0001-Add-errcontext-to-errors-happening-during-applyin) on HEAD,
getting the below error:
patching file src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c
Hunk #11 succeeded at 1195 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #12 succeeded at 1253 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #13 succeeded at 1277 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #14 succeeded at 1305 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #15 succeeded at 1330 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #16 succeeded at 1362 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #17 succeeded at 1508 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #18 succeeded at 1524 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #19 succeeded at 1645 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #20 succeeded at 1671 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #21 succeeded at 1772 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #22 succeeded at 1828 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #23 succeeded at 1934 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #24 succeeded at 1962 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #25 succeeded at 2399 (offset 50 lines).
Hunk #26 FAILED at 2405.
Hunk #27 succeeded at 3730 (offset 54 lines).
1 out of 27 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c.rej


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS