| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo |
| Date: | 2024-01-11 09:35:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+RrK4VE_5z_W40gfcp7g8p799ma2u1+BS+VGo-XKEAdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 8:15 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > But tomorrow it could be for other tables and if we change this
> > > TRUNCATE logic for pg_largeobject (of which chances are less) then
> > > there is always a chance that one misses changing this comment. I feel
> > > keeping it generic in this case would be better as the problem is
> > > generic but it is currently shown for pg_largeobject.
> >
> > Yes, for sure. So let's keep it generic as you prefer.
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> Thanks for working the patch. I'm also OK to push the Amit's fix patch.
>
Thanks to both of you. I have pushed the patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-01-11 09:42:38 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-01-11 09:33:52 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |