Re: Logical Replication of sequences - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From vignesh C
Subject Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Date
Msg-id CALDaNm2o6X5tL5KiyYALYcgmnV_+d4kszxbJ6QdgAE6vaPNiLg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical Replication of sequences  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 at 04:58, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> Here are some review comments for the patch v20241211-0003.
>
> ~~~
>
> 4.
> +/*
> + * Common code to fetch the up-to-date sync state info into the static lists.
> + *
> + * Returns true if subscription has 1 or more tables, else false.
> + *
> + * Note: If this function started the transaction (indicated by the parameter)
> + * then it is the caller's responsibility to commit it.
> + */
> +bool
> +FetchRelationStates(bool *started_tx)
>
> Here is another place where the function name is "relations", but the
> function comment refers to "tables".

In this place the use of tables in comment is intentional, as the
return is based on subscription having any tables, and is not
applicable for sequence.

The rest of the comments are fixed and the changes for the same are
available at the v202412123 version patch shared at [1].
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0FqKMqOdm7tNoT5KgK1BAMeeVnOXrSJ2024TscAbf4Og%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Vignesh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional comments around need_escapes in pg_parse_json()
Next
From: Daniil Davydov
Date:
Subject: Repeatable read transaction doesn't see dropped table