Re: Problem with logical replication

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:48:53AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 02:47, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Agreed.  I don't think either that we need to update this comment.  I
>> was playing with this patch and what you have here looks fine by me.
>> Two nits: the extra parenthesis in the assert are not necessary, and
>> the indentation had some diffs.  Tom has just reindented the whole
>> tree, so let's keep things clean.
>
> LGTM.

Thanks for double-checking.  Applied and back-patched down to 10
then.
--
Michael