On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:50 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:25 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, March 21, 2022 6:01 PM Amit Kapila
> > > <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I posted the wrong patch, here is the correct one.
> >
>
> The test change looks good to me. I think additionally we can verify that the
> record is not reflected in the subscriber table. Apart from that, I had made
> minor changes mostly in the comments in the attached patch. If those look
> okay to you, please include those in the next version.
Thanks, the changes look good to me, I merged the diff patch.
Attach the new version patch which include the following changes:
- Fix a typo
- Change the requestreply flag of the newly added WalSndKeepalive to false,
because the subscriber can judge whether it's necessary to post a reply based
on the received LSN.
- Add a testcase to make sure there is no data in subscriber side when the
transaction is skipped.
- Change the name of flag skipped_empty_xact to skipped_xact which seems more
understandable.
- Merge Amit's suggested changes.
Best regards,
Hou zj
