Re: Added missing invalidations for all tables publication
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Added missing invalidations for all tables publication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LCFb2bLj6W3yPMNKBUj=cjGi+2vr163EDGc92y2pHbtQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Added missing invalidations for all tables publication ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Added missing invalidations for all tables publication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:57 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > From Mon, Sep 6, 2021 1:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 8:54 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the comments, the attached v3 patch has the changes for > > > > the same. > > > > > > > > > > I think this bug should be fixed in back branches (till v10). OTOH, as > > > this is not reported by any user and we have found it during code > > > review so it seems either users don't have an exact use case or they > > > haven't noticed this yet. What do you people think about back-patching? > > > > Personally, I think it's ok to back-patch. > > I found that the patch cannot be applied to back-branches(v10-v14) cleanly, > so, I generate the patches for back-branches. Attached, all the patches have > passed regression test. > Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: