On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 7:02 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/22 13:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:42 PM Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/14/22 12:12, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 5:08 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyway, the fix does not address tablesync, as explained in [1]. I'm not
> >> sure what to do about it - in principle, we could calculate which
> >> relations to sync, and then eliminate "duplicates" (i.e. relations where
> >> we are going to sync an ancestor).
> >>
> >
> > As mentioned in my previous email [1], this appears to be a base code
> > issue (even without row filter or column filter work), so it seems
> > better to deal with it separately. It has been reported separately as
> > well [2] where we found some similar issues.
> >
>
> Right. I don't want to be waiting for that fix either, that'd block this
> patch unnecessarily. If there are no other comments, I'll go ahead,
> polish the existing patches a bit more and get them committed. We can
> worry about this pre-existing issue later.
>
I think the first two patches are ready to go. I haven't read the
latest version in detail but I have in mind that we want to get this
in for PG-15.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.