On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 12:47 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, at 3:10 AM, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice in the case
> > > (change Replica Identity from Nothing to some index) you mentioned in
> > > the previous email?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see the point. I think this is okay because
> > AddRelcacheInvalidationMessage doesn't allow to add duplicate rel
> > invalidation. If that is the case I wonder why not simply register
> > invalidation without any check in the for loop as was the case with
> > Tang's original patch?
>
> OK, I also think the code in Tang's original patch is fine.
> Attach the patch which register invalidation without any check in the for loop.
>
> WFM.
>
The patch looks mostly good to me. I have slightly tweaked the
comments in the code (as per my previous suggestion) and test. Also, I
have slightly modified the commit message. If the attached looks good
to you then kindly prepare patches for back-branches.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.