On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 7:39 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> When testing the patch, I noticed a bug that when reporting the conflict
> after calling ExecInsertIndexTuples(), we might find the tuple that we
> just inserted and report it.(we should only report conflict if there are
> other conflict tuples which are not inserted by us) Here is a new patch
> which fixed this and fixed a compile warning reported by CFbot.
>
Thank you for the patch!
A review comment: The patch does not detect 'update_differ' conflicts
when the Publisher has a non-partitioned table and the Subscriber has
a partitioned version.
Here’s a simple failing test case:
Pub: create table tab (a int primary key, b int not null, c varchar(5));
Sub: create table tab (a int not null, b int not null, c varchar(5))
partition by range (b);
alter table tab add constraint tab_pk primary key (a, b);
create table tab_1 partition of tab for values from (minvalue) to (100);
create table tab_2 partition of tab for values from (100) to (maxvalue);
With the above setup, in case the Subscriber table has a tuple with
its own origin, the incoming remote update from the Publisher fails to
detect the 'update_differ' conflict.
--
Thanks,
Nisha
