On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 2:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pushed this one and now I'll look at your other patch.
> > >
> >
> > I have pushed the second patch as well after making minor changes in
> > the comments. Alvaro [1] and Tom [2] suggest to back-patch this and
> > they sound reasonable to me. Will you be able to produce back branch
> > patches?
>
> Yes. I've attached patches for backbranches. The updates are
> straightforward on v11 - v15. However, on v10, we don't use
> wait_for_catchup() in some logical replication test cases. The commit
> bbd3363e128dae refactored the tests to use wait_for_catchup but it's
> not backpatched. So in the patch for v10, I didn't change the code
> that was changed by the commit. Also, since wait_for_catchup requires
> to specify $target_lsn, unlike the one in v11 or later, I changed
> wait_for_subscription_sync() accordingly.
>
Thanks for your patches.
In the patches for pg11 ~ pg14, it looks we need to add a "=pod" before the
current change in PostgresNode.pm. Right?
Regards,
Shi yu
