RE: Avoid streaming the transaction which are skipped (in corner cases)

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 12:01 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:55 AM shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 6:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we need something like this[1] so that we can better control
> > > > > the streaming.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1. The additional advantage would be that we can generate parallel
> > > > apply and new streaming tests with much lesser data. Shi-San, can you
> > > > please start a new thread for the GUC patch proposed by you as
> > > > indicated by Dilip?
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, I started a new thread for it. [1]
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. I think it is better to go ahead with this patch and once we
> > decide what is the right thing to do in terms of GUC then we can try
> > to add additional tests for this. Anyway, it is not that the code
> > added by this patch is not getting covered by existing tests. What do
> > you think?
>
> That makes sense to me.
>

+1

Regards,
Shi yu