Re: Logical Replication of sequences

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Chao Li
Тема Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Дата
Msg-id 158C2EDB-D505-46A6-996D-296EC1B3ACE2@gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на RE: Logical Replication of sequences  ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
Ответы RE: Logical Replication of sequences
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
I only reviewed 0003 as I saw Amit mentioned next should be 0003. Over LGTM, I just got one comment:


<v20251014-0005-Documentation-for-sequence-synchronization.patch><v20251014-0001-Update-ALTER-SUBSCRIPTION-REFRESH-to-ALTER.patch><v20251014-0002-Introduce-REFRESH-SEQUENCES-for-subscripti.patch><v20251014-0003-Reorganize-tablesync-Code-and-Introduce-sy.patch><v20251014-0004-New-worker-for-sequence-synchronization-du.patch>


In common.c:
```
- pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of tables");
+ pg_log_info("reading subscription membership of relations");
  getSubscriptionTables(fout);
```

0003 is replacing “table” with “relation” everywhere, I think that's because Sequence will be involved. In this place, why the comment is updated, but the function name is unchanged? Looking at the function comment of getSubscriptionTables():

/*
* getSubscriptionTables
* Get information about subscription membership for dumpable relations. This
* will be used only in binary-upgrade mode for PG17 or later versions.
*/
void
getSubscriptionTables(Archive *fout)

It also mentions “dumpable relations”. Should we update the function to use “relation” as well?

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: