On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:15 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 12:39 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > 3) v55-0002
> > > > +static bool pgoutput_row_filter_update_check(enum
> > > > ReorderBufferChangeType changetype, Relation relation,
> > > > +
> > > > HeapTuple oldtuple, HeapTuple newtuple,
> > > > +
> > > > RelationSyncEntry *entry, ReorderBufferChangeType *action);
> > > >
> > > > Do we need parameter changetype here? I think it could only be
> > > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE.
> > >
> > > I didn't change this, I think it might be better to wait for Ajin's opinion.
> >
> > I agree with Tang. AFAIK there is no problem removing that redundant
> > param as suggested. BTW - the Assert within that function is also
> > incorrect because the only possible value is
> > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_UPDATE. I will make these fixes in a future
> > version.
> >
>
> That sounds fine to me too. One more thing is that you don't need to
> modify the action in case it remains update as the caller has already
> set that value. Currently, we are modifying it as update at two places
> in this function, we can remove both of those and keep the comments
> intact for the later update.
>
Fixed in v59* [1]
------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPsiw9fbOUTpCMWirut1ZD5hbWk8_U9tZya4mG-YK%2Bfq8g%40mail.gmail.com
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia