On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/22 05:30, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Okay, please find attached. I have done basic testing of this, if we
>>> agree with this approach then this will require some more testing.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, the proposed changes seem like a clear improvement, so I've
>> added them, with some minor tweaks (mostly to comments).
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for updating the patches !
> And sorry for the row filter bug caused by my mistake.
>
> I looked at the two fixup patches. I am thinking would it be better if we
> add one testcase for these two bugs? Maybe like the attachment.
>
Yeah, a test would be nice - I'll take a look later.
Anyway, the fix does not address tablesync, as explained in [1]. I'm not
sure what to do about it - in principle, we could calculate which
relations to sync, and then eliminate "duplicates" (i.e. relations where
we are going to sync an ancestor).
regards
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/822a8e40-287c-59ff-0ea9-35eb759f4fe6%40enterprisedb.com
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
