On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attaching v10 with the above changes.
>
The patch does not apply on HEAD. Can you please rebase?
thanks
Shveta
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:30 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Here is V70 patch set.
> > >
> >
Please find a few comments on v70-003:
1)
Doc of dead_tuple_retention_active says:
True if retain_dead_tuples is enabled and the retention duration for
Few trivial comments for doc:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:45 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is V70 patch set.
> >
>
> The patch v70-0001 looks good to me. Verified, all the old issues are
> resolved.
>
> Will resume review of v70-0002 now.
>
Please find a few comments on v70
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 10:24 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Few trivial comments for doc:
Sorry, the email got sent without comments.
1)
+It is important to note that when
wal_level is set to
+replica the effective WAL level can
automatically change
comma after replica missi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:07 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I reviewed the patch internally and tweaked a small detail of the apply worker
> to reduce the waiting time in the main loop when max_retention_duration is
> defined (set wait_time = min(wait_time, max_retention_duration)). Also, I
On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 11:43 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> Thanks for providing the patch. I reviewed your patch and have
> following comment:
>
> 1. I think we should add a commit message in the patch. It would help
> to give an understanding of the patch.
>
> 2. I tried applying patc
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 4:14 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1276,7 +1331,7 @@ wait_for_slot_activity(bool some_slot_upd
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:49 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the new version patch set which also addressed Shveta's comments[1].
>
Thanks for the patch.
On 001 alone, I’m observing a behavior where, if sub1 has stopped
retention, and I then create a new subscription sub2, the worker
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 3:01 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:29 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM shveta malik
> > >
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:44 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:53 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've removed them.
> > > Attaching patch v8
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:11 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> What is the procedure to create this patch. Thank you for your help.
>
We use 'git format-patch' to generate formatted patches. I have given
a few links ([1],[2],[3)] on know-how.
I usually use these steps:
git add
git add
git c
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 12:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached the updated patch that incorporated t
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:02 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I noticed that Cfbot failed to compile the document due to a typo after
> renaming
> the subscription option. Here are the updated V67 patches to fix that, only
> the doc
> in 0001 is modified.
>
Please find a few comments:
pat
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 7:55 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> For the first step (a), the pg_create_logical_replication_slot interface is
> extended.
> The slot on the new attached standby will be dropped and recreated if the
> flag allow_overwrite is set to true.
> I tested the modified source, co
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 7:54 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My colleague Nisha reported an issue to me off-list: dead tuples can't
> be removed when retain_dead_tuples is enabled for a subscription with no
> tables.
>
> This appears to stem from the inability to advance the non-remova
Please find some more comments:
1)
In CheckSubDeadTupleRetention(), shall we have below instead of
retain_dead_tuples check in all conditions?
if (retain_dead_tuples)
guc checks (wal_level and tracl_commit)
else
max retention check
2)
Currently stop and resume messages are:
~~
LOG: logic
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 12:54 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached the updated patch that incorporated the comments and is
> rebased to the current HEAD.
>
Thanks for the patch, please find a few comments concerning LOG messages:
1)
slotsync worker gives LOG:
LOG: replication slot synchr
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:08 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> I have also addressed all the comments from [1] in the attached
> v20250823 version patch.
> [1] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BoVQW8oP%3DLo1X8qac6dzg-fgGQ6R_F_psfokUEqe%2Ba6w%40mail.gmail.com
>
Thank You for the patches
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 12:09 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:06 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attach the V65 patch set which addressed above and
> > Shveta's comments[1].
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches, please
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 3:51 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I found that we don't need to expose LogicalDecodingCtlData in
> logicalctl.h header file. I've updated some cosmetic changes including
> that point.
>
> I think the patch is getting pretty good shape
Yes, I agree.
> and am aiming at
>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:06 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the V65 patch set which addressed above and
> Shveta's comments[1].
>
Thank You for the patches, please find a few comments on v64 itself (I
think valid on v65 as well):
1) in resume_conflict_info_retention(), shall we rewri
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration'
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:53 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> I've removed them.
> Attaching patch v8 addressing the above comments.
>
Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments:
1)
When the API is in progress, and meanwhile in another session we turn
off hot_standby_feedback, the API session
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:34 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 3:11 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find a few comments:
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
> >
> > 1)
> > ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots:
> > + bool
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 2:09 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:01 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. Here is V63 versi
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:25 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 23:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I imagined something like case 2. For logical replication of tables,
> > if we support DDL replication (i.e., CREATE/ALTER/DROP TABLE), all
> > changes the apply worker executes are s
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I agree. Here is V63 version which implements this approach.
>
Thank You for the patches.
> The retention status is recorded in the pg_subscription catalog
> (subretentionactive) to prevent unnecessary retention initiation upon s
Please find a few comments:
1)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots:
+ bool dropped = false;
We can name 'dropped ' as 'dropped_logical' similar to ReplicationSlotCleanup.
2)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots()
+
+ if (dropped && nlogicalslots == 0)
+ DisableLogicalDecodingIfNecessary();
I could not understan
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:55 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attaching patch v7 addressing all the above comments.
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
1)
We are not resetting 'slot_persistence_pending' to false anywhere. So
once it hits the flow which sets it to true, it will ne
Few more comments:
1)
src/sgml/monitoring.sgml:
+
+ True if retain_dead_tuples
+ is enabled and the duration for which information useful for conflict
+ detection is retained by this apply worker does not exceed
+ max_conflict_retention_duration;
NULL for
+ par
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:28 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Patch v6 attached.
>
Thanks Ajin. Please find my comments:
1)
SyncReplicationSlots:
+ remote_slots = fetch_or_refresh_remote_slots(wrconn, NIL);
+
+ /* Retry until all slots are sync ready atleast */
+ for (;;)
+ {
+ bool some_slot_update
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 9:29 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing this. In fact, I agree, introducing an allow_overwrite
> slot property makes seems cleaner than a GUC for this specific use case.
>
> a) At first, an extension of pg_create_logical_replication_slot() could be
> propos
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 4:15 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:41 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is the V61 patch set which addressed above comments and the comment by
> > Nisha[2].
> >
>
> Thank You for the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >
> > 4)
> > For the DETAIL part of resume and stop messages, how about these:
> >
> > The retention duration for information used in conflict detection has
> > exceeded the limit of xx.
> > The retention duration for information used in confl
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:41 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is the V61 patch set which addressed above comments and the comment by
> Nisha[2].
>
Thank You for the patch. I tested the patch, please find a few comments:
1)
Now when it stops-retention and later resumes it due to the fa
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 7:01 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Thanks Shveta for coming on this point again and fixing the link.
> The idea is to check if the slot has same name to try to resynchronize it
> with the primary.
> ok the check on the failover status for the remote slot is perhaps redundan
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:37 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 11:22 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's also a minor merge conflict because func.sgml is not split
> > into multiple files.
> >
>
> Yes, I fixed this.
>
Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments:
025 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 2:06 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > postgres=# create subscription sub2 connection 'dbname
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 2:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I agree. So, following the above points and some off-list discussions, I have
> revised the option to be a subscription option in the V60 version.
>
Thank You for the patches. Tried to test the new sub-level parameter,
have few comme
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 8:52 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While testing the replication slot synchronization feature, I set up
> three instances on the same machine:
>
> - Physical replication primary (also Logical replication publisher)
> - Physical replication standby
> - Logical replicatio
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:58 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > So logically for PostgreSQL its an
> > > user table but yeah
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 10:10 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:09 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > Here is V57 patch set which addressed most of comments.
> >
> > In this version, I also fixed a bug that the apply worker continued to find
> > dead
> > tuples e
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:50 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> An issue occurred during the initial switchover using PostgreSQL version
> 17.5. The setup consists of a cluster with two nodes, managed by Patroni
> version 4.0.5.
> Logical replication is configured on the same instance, and the
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:43 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks Shveta for your opinion on the design.
>
> > > On Tue, Aug 5
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 3:30 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find a few comments on v6:
> >
> > 1)
> > +/*
> > + * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
> &
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:05 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration'
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> > approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> plain text log files for conflict details is inefficient. 2) Lack of
> structured data, key conflict
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 4:29 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
>
> 1)
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
1)
* If 'resync_all_sequences' is false:
* Add or remove tables and sequences that have been added to or removed
Please find a few comments on v6:
1)
+/*
+ * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
+ * must be called ONCE during postmaster or standalone-backend startup,
+ * before initializing replication slots.
+ */
+void
+StartupLogicalDecodingStatus(bool last_status)
The comme
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 6:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I've attached the updated version patch.
>
Thank You for the patch. The patch does not apply to the latest head
due to conflict with slot-sync fix (commit-Id: 4614d53d).
thanks
Shveta
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 7:35 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:38 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
>
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sawada-san,
> >
> > > I thought we could fix this issue by checking the number of in-use
> > > logical slots while holding ReplicationSlotControlLock and
> > > L
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 5)
> > I tried a test where there were 4 slots on the publisher, where one
> > was getting used while the others were not. Initiated
> > pg_sync_
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:16 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for confirming. Here is V56 patch set which addressed all the
> comments including the comments from Amit[1] and Shveta[2].
>
> I have merged V55-0002 into 0001 and updated the list of author
> and reviewers based on my knowle
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:02 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Patch v3 attached.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
>
>
> 1)
> it hit
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Patch v3 attached.
>
Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
1)
it hits an assert
(slotsync_reread_config()-->Assert(sync_replication_slots)) when API
is trying to sync and is in wait loop while in another session,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:49 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2025 5:26 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is th
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> This is the V54 patch set, with only patch 0001 updated to address the latest
> comments.
>
Thanks for the patch.
While performing tests on the latest patch, I found an assert in
tablesync worker in FindDeletedTupleInLocalRel (se
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 11:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> > changes for the same.
> >
> Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> changes for the same.
>
Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
1)
WARNING: WITH clause parameters do not affect sequence synchronization
a)
How about:
WITH cl
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 11:45 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for testing the patch!
>
> I've reworked the locking part in the patch. The attached v4 patch
> should address all review comments including your previous
> comments[1].
>
Thank You for the patch. I have not reviewed fully, but
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
> >
>
> Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, bu
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
>
Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, but please find a few
comments on 001:
1)
IsIndexUsableForFindingDeletedTuple()
We first have:
+ /*
+ * A frozen transaction ID in
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 12:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2)
> > >
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 7:17 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 6:46 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> > Thinking out loud, when cleaning up after a backend or background
> > worker crash, process_pm_child_exit() is invoked, which sub
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
>
> 2)
> + if (MySubscription->retaindeadtuples &&
> + FindMostRecentlyDeletedTupleInfo(localrel, remoteslot,
> +
> &conflicttuple.xmin,
> +
&g
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 2:39 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 6:58 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:51 AM cca5507 wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The v1-0002 in [1] will call ReportBa
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 12:53 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2025 12:08 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 3:51 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've reviewed the 0001 patch and it looks good to me.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, I have pushed the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 5:03 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree. The main patch focuses on the part where we
> automatically change the effective WAL level upon the logical slot
> creation and deletion (and potentially remove 'logical' from
> wal_level), and other things are implemented as
I further tested inherited tables flow as well wrt ONLY and EXCEPT, it
works well. But while reading docs for the saem, I have few concerns.
1)
While explaining ONLY for EXCEPT, create-publication doc says this
+ This does not apply to a partitioned table, however. The partitions of
+
Shlok, I was trying to validate the interaction of
'publish_via_partition_root' with 'EXCEPT". Found some unexpected
behaviour, can you please review:
Pub:
-
CREATE TABLE tab_root (range_col int,i int,j int) PARTITION BY RANGE
(range_col);
CREATE TABLE tab_part_1 PARTITION OF tab_root FOR
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 16:25, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few more comments on 002:
> >
> > 5)
> > +GetAllTablesPublicationRelations(Oid pubid, bool pubviaroot)
> > {
> >
&
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 4:17 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 16:25, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few more comments on 002:
> >
> > 5)
> > +GetAllTablesPublicationRelations(Oid pubid, bool pubviaroot)
> > {
> >
&
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 11:15, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 3. Some of the syntaxes works for sequence which doesn't make sense to
> > > me, as listed below, I think there are mor
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I am slightly hesitant to introduce multiple ways to enable logical
> decoding/replication unless that is the only path as giving multiple
> options to achieve the same thing can confuse users as to which one is
> preferable and pros/cons of
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:15 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> 3. Some of the syntaxes works for sequence which doesn't make sense to
> me, as listed below, I think there are more
>
> postgres[154731]=# CREATE PUBLICATION insert_only FOR ALL SEQUENCES
> WITH (publish = 'insert');
> CREATE PUBLICATION
>
>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:23 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > &
On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:31 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:25 AM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay. I see your point. Yes, it was non-blocking earlier but
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:52 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:45 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> &g
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not able to apply the patch to the latest head or even to a week
>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:56 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 4:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 6:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I think that even with retai
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:51 AM cca5507 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The v1-0002 in [1] will call ReportBackgroundWorkerExit() which will send
> SIGUSR1 to 'bgw_notify_pid', but it may already exit in HandleChildCrash(),
> is this ok?
>
Shall ReportBackgroundWorkerExit() be skipped for 'crashed' backgrou
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:47 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> > I am not able to apply the patch to the latest head or even to a week
> > back version. Can you please check and rebase?
> >
> > thanks
> > Shveta
>
> Rebased.
>
Thanks. Please find a few comments:
1)
/* Any slot with NULL in these field
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:00 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:56 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Few comments:
> >
> > 1)
> > When the API is waiting for the primary to advance, standby fails to
> > handle promotion requests. Promot
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:37 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached updated patches that implement the idea we've discussed.
> The patches still need to be polished but the implemented ideas seem
> good. Feedback is very welcome.
>
Thank You for the patches. I just tried my hands on ptach00
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 2:56 PM cca5507 wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> I found the $SUBJECT, the main reason is that RegisteredBgWorker::rw_pid has
> not been cleaned.
>
> Attach a patch to fix it.
>
Thank You for reporting this. The problem exists and the patch works
as expected.
In the patch, we
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:03 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 14:26, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 4:11 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > SyncFetchRelationStates:
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:08 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> Thanks for your README questions.
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 1:46 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thank You for working on this. I started going through the README and
> > tried run
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 4:11 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> > 3)
> > SyncFetchRelationStates:
> > Earlier the name was FetchTableStates. If we really want to use the
> > 'Sync' keyword, we can name it FetchRelationSyncStates, as we are
> > fetching sync-status only. Thoughts?
>
> Instead of FetchRelatio
Thank You for working on this. I started going through the README and
tried running simple tests, have few concerns:
1)
I am not able to understand section 4.2 'WOS-to-ROS conversion'. When
whiteout-WOS says 'delete 4', what does that mean? 4 is CRID, TXID?
And when does delete-vector X represents
Please find a few more comments on July4 patch
6)
+
+ To synchronize sequences from a publisher to a subscriber, first publish
+ them using
+ CREATE PUBLICATION ... FOR ALL SEQUENCES.
+
This sentence looks odd, as we have 'first' but no follow-up sentence
after that. Can we please comb
Please find few more comments:
1)
In pg_sync_replication_slots() doc, we have this:
"Note that this function is primarily intended for testing and
debugging purposes and should be used with caution. Additionally, this
function cannot be executed if "
We can get rid of this info as well and
1 - 100 of 634 matches
Mail list logo
