Re: Ignore heap rewrites for materialized views in logical replication

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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