On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:41 PM, amul sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Your change appears fine to me. I think one can set both block number >> and offset as we do for HeapTupleHeaderIsSpeculative, but the way you >> have done it looks good to me. Kindly include it in the next version >> of your patch by adding the missing comment. >> > > Thanks for the confirmation, updated patch attached. >
+# Concurrency error from GetTupleForTrigger +# Concurrency error from ExecLockRows I think you don't need to mention above sentences in spec files. Apart from that, your patch looks good to me. I have marked it as Ready For Committer. Notes for Committer - 1. We might need some changes in update-tuple-routing mechanism if we decide to do anything for the bug [1] discussed in the nearby thread, but as that is not directly related to this patch, we can move ahead. 2. I think it is better to document that for update tuple routing the delete+insert will be replayed separately on replicas. I leave this to the discretion of the committer. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAJ_b94bYxLsX0erZXVH-anQPbWqcYUPWX4xVRa1YJY%3DPh60ZQ%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com