pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:29:52 +0100
Message-ID: <c0d69728-c3d8-ede8-ad31-941b2bbaff66@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+HiwqFZbbJzAZgTjqbRarp_xeqyymuNmGg8Q5tDKTZbk3=c2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+HiwqH=Y85vRK3mOdjEkqFK+E=ST=eQiHdpj43L=_eJMOOznQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+FpmFfKmsNww_C5hWU-=wg9h3cyV7vZcCUKWrrhtLkteUtY4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+HiwqE2ie6_T01fMzsf7c5=hCGoVdj2yTStCJ78zOmayMVWbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<825b31ea-ad9f-21d1-29b6-2a494513458d@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+HiwqEqm3xvnMHjstkrECrpVv9R7YgYYpRHHVrffSvA9Zrf9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+HiwqGiFpkHxx0mc2zpdJLGzfqEaqsdqUZurNto9kbkwzcQ1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+FpmFfve1TtLvj5CwpgEZrjNiFG-EWh4ywpbtrB7-UTkZo2gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+HiwqHfV73E4aJxX6d79xSEZjp+stFKnD0+7OktPw2_tD=pYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<73a1877a-6f1d-9f2e-da51-bc2eb57e07d5@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+HiwqFjo=vCXDdkwprf6ipaVeegCpW79n-Ds8BK5cNQsSey2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<d760bb60-563c-dd01-9903-f9337d50e8a6@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+HiwqFBni-cXy5NBN0PdwxidXgcCEio0N_AOnOM0pR2dMWUyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+HiwqGVbp0yh-7-FscZiYu1B_CJjaDZRTYkPTjnjpUgSzE6RA@mail.gmail.com>
	<b8f257af-3fcd-65b9-088c-0248d82e4e99@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+HiwqFZbbJzAZgTjqbRarp_xeqyymuNmGg8Q5tDKTZbk3=c2A@mail.gmail.com>

On 2020-03-23 06:02, Amit Langote wrote:
> Okay, added some tests.
> 
> Attached updated patches.

I have committed the worker.c refactoring patch.

"Add subscription support to replicate into partitioned tables" still 
has lacking test coverage.  Your changes in relation.c are not exercised 
at all because the partitioned table branch in apply_handle_update() is 
never taken.  This is critical and tricky code, so I would look for 
significant testing.

The code looks okay to me.  I would remove this code

+       memset(entry->attrmap->attnums, -1,
+              entry->attrmap->maplen * sizeof(AttrNumber));

because the entries are explicitly filled right after anyway, and 
filling the bytes with -1 has an unclear effect.  There is also 
seemingly some fishiness in this code around whether attribute numbers 
are zero- or one-based.  Perhaps this could be documented briefly. 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services





view thread (86+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <c0d69728-c3d8-ede8-ad31-941b2bbaff66@2ndquadrant.com>
Permalink:  ../c0d69728-c3d8-ede8-ad31-941b2bbaff66@2ndquadrant.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/c0d69728-c3d8-ede8-ad31-941b2bbaff66@2ndquadrant.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, amitlangote09@gmail.com, rafia.pghackers@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
  In-Reply-To: <c0d69728-c3d8-ede8-ad31-941b2bbaff66@2ndquadrant.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox