From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce wait_for_subscription_sync for TAP tests |
Date: | 2022-08-03 06:46:02 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCm69ptLvYimfDiq9=cSfkA69EVeZo-m05kfjbd55nNHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 12:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:37 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:08 PM shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > > <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached updated patches that incorporated the above comments as
> > > well as the comment from Amit.
> > >
> > > BTW regarding 0001 patch to remove the duplicated wait, should we
> > > backpatch to v15?
> > >
> >
> > I think it is good to clean this test case even for PG15 even though
> > there is no major harm in keeping it. I'll push this early next week
> > by Tuesday unless someone thinks otherwise.
> >
>
> Pushed this one and now I'll look at your other patch.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-08-03 06:52:46 | RE: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-08-03 06:30:16 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |