From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical Replication - detail message with names of missing columns |
Date: | 2020-09-08 03:46:31 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACVFkf_V+5Mv+jajZKJJNcTMfGY5gPrXc61VPKhPYFLbTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:50 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> +1 for objective. However, that can be done simpler way that doesn't
> need additional loops by using bitmapset to hold missing remote
> attribute numbers. This also make the variable "found" useless.
>
Thanks. I will look into it and post a v2 patch soon.
>
> > Here's a snapshot how the error looks with the patch:
> > 2020-09-04 01:00:36.721 PDT [843128] ERROR: logical replication
> > target relation "public.test_1" is missing "b1, d1" replicated columns
> > 2020-09-04 01:00:46.784 PDT [843132] ERROR: logical replication
> > target relation "public.test_1" is missing "b1" replicated columns
> > 2020-09-06 21:24:53.645 PDT [902945] ERROR: logical replication
> > target relation "public.test_1" is missing "a1, c1, d1, b1" replicated
> > columns
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> FWIW, I would prefer that the message be like
>
> logical replication target relation "public.test_1" is missing
> replicated columns: "a1", "c1"
>
This looks fine, I will change that.
>
> I'm not sure we need to have separate messages for singular and plural.
>
I don't think we need to have separate messages. To keep it simple,
let's have plural form.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-09-08 04:00:45 | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-08 03:10:25 | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |