| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_publication_tables() output duplicate relid |
| Date: | 2021-11-24 08:47:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LOfpVMqdkh37WRAeY6yq6E83k21TgfpZ25SsE8NmfgWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > As in,
> > > do we know of any replication (initial/streaming) misbehavior caused
> > > by the duplicate partition OIDs in this case or is the only problem
> > > that pg_publication_tables output looks odd?
> >
> > The latter one but I think either we should document this or change it
> > as we can't assume users will follow what subscriber-side code does.
>
> On second thought, I agree that de-duplicating partitions from this
> view is an improvement.
>
Fair enough. Hou-San, Can you please submit the updated patch after
fixing any pending comments including the test case?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-24 08:50:24 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-11-24 08:44:20 | Re: pg_get_publication_tables() output duplicate relid |