On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:23 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2020-04-09 09:28, Amit Langote wrote: > > While figuring this out, I thought the nearby code could be rearranged > > a bit, especially to de-duplicate the code. Also, I think > > get_rel_sync_entry() may be a better place to set the map, rather than > > maybe_send_schema(). Thoughts? > > because I didn't really have an opinion on that at the time, but if you > still want it considered or have any open thoughts on this thread, > please resend or explain.
Sure, thanks for taking care of the bug. Rebased the code rearrangement patch. Also resending the patch to fix TAP tests for improving coverage as described in: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BHiwqFyydvQ5g%3Dqa54UM%2BXjm77BdhX-nM4dXQkNOgH%3DzvDjoA%40mail.gmail.com To summarize: 1. Missing coverage for a couple of related blocks in apply_handle_tuple_routing() 2. Missing coverage report for the code in pgoutput.c added by 83fd4532 -- Amit Langote EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
0001-Rearrange-some-code-in-pgoutput.c.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Fix-partition-logical-replication-TAP-tests-for-bett.patch
Description: Binary data
