| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Table refer leak in logical replication |
| Date: | 2021-04-20 11:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB571639608999D27996E038A294489@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > ... FWIW, I'd rather
> > agree to use what has been proposed with es_opened_result_relations
> > like TRUNCATE does rather than attempt to use ExecInitResultRelation()
> > combined with potentially asymmetric calls to
> > ExecCloseResultRelations().
>
> Okay, how about the attached then? I decided to go with just finish_estate(),
> because we no longer have to do anything relation specific there.
>
I think the patch looks good.
But I noticed that there seems no testcase to test the [aftertrigger in subscriber] when using logical replication.
As we seems planned to do some further refactor in the future, Is it better to add one testcase to cover this code ?
Best regards,
houzj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrik Novotny | 2021-04-20 11:59:44 | RFE: Make statistics robust for unplanned events |
| Previous Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2021-04-20 11:11:31 | Re: "could not find pathkey item to sort" for TPC-DS queries 94-96 |