From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ignore heap rewrites for materialized views in logical replication |
Date: | 2022-06-03 10:20:03 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KtWuh06jBc+AYASQod4V9T7y4LTrMS3Ee1=YPbswctBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:39 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 8:28 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 11:13 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think we don't need the retry logical to check error, a simple
> > wait_for_caught_up should be sufficient as we are doing in other
> > tests. See attached. I have slightly modified the commit message as
> > well. Kindly let me know what you think?
> >
> > Your modification will hang until the test timeout without the patch. That's
> > why I avoided to use wait_for_caught_up and used a loop for fast exit on success
> > or failure.
> >
>
> Right, but that is true for other tests as well and we are not
> expecting to face this/other errors. I think keeping it simple and
> similar to other tests seems enough for this case.
>
> > I'm fine with a simple test case like you proposed.
> >
>
> Thanks, I'll push this in a day or two unless I see any other
> suggestions/comments.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2022-06-03 10:20:08 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2022-06-03 10:10:55 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |