Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljWsf-0000Zw-BB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 May 2021 00:49:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljWse-0004rz-AZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 May 2021 00:49:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljWse-0004rW-31 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 May 2021 00:49:40 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ljWsa-0004Xm-Bg for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 May 2021 00:49:39 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 14K0nYIs3566942; Wed, 19 May 2021 20:49:34 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Amit Langote , Amit Kapila , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Subscription tests fail under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS In-reply-to: References: <3382681.1621381328@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3392911.1621395985@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3508426.1621455835@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Thu, 20 May 2021 08:56:09 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3566940.1621471774.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 20:49:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3566941.1621471774@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 04:23:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> * Replace the edata->resultRelInfo field with two fields, one for >> the original parent and one for the actual/current target. Perhaps >> this is worth doing, not sure. > This one sounds more natural to me, though. OK, I'll give that a try tomorrow. > May I ask why you are not moving the snapshot pop and push into the > finish() and create() routines for this patch? That does need to happen, but I figured I'd leave it to the other patch, since there are other things to change too for that snapshot problem. Obviously, whichever patch goes in second will need trivial adjustments, but I think it's logically clearer that way. > Also, any thoughts > about adding the trigger tests from 013_partition.pl to REL_13_STABLE? Yeah, if this is a pre-existing problem then we should back-port the tests that revealed it. regards, tom lane