Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:33 PM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 2:13 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the updated patch:
> > Few comments:
> > 1) We have used Reordering and Clustering for the same command, we could
> > rephrase similarly in both places.
> > + <para>
> > + Reordering <structname>pg_class</structname> by
> > <command>CLUSTER</command>
> > + command in a transaction.
> > + </para>
> >
> > + <para>
> > + Clustering <structname>pg_trigger</structname> and decoding
> > <command>PREPARE
> > + TRANSACTION</command>, if any published table have a trigger
> > and any
> > + operations that will be decoded are conducted.
> > + </para>
> > + </listitem>
> >
> > 2) Here user_catalog_table should be user catalog table
> > + <para>
> > + Executing <command>TRUNCATE</command> on
> > user_catalog_table
> > in a transaction.
> > + </para>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> Attached the patch-set that addressed those two comments.
> I also fixed the commit message a bit in the 2PC specific patch to HEAD.
> No other changes.
>
> Please check.

Thanks for the updated patches, the patch applies cleanly in all branches.
Please add a commitfest entry for this, so that we don't miss it.

Regards,
Vignesh