Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-vfa7dH0f9Za8YXuT+HvH4NfJqL6c5NYMtdn7NCO1XApA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 3:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:16 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > + /* > + * If it's a whole-tuple reference, say "not equal". It's not really > + * worth supporting this case, since it could only succeed after a > + * no-op update, which is hardly a case worth optimizing for. > + */ > + if (attrnum == 0) > + continue; > + > + /* > + * Likewise, automatically say "not equal" for any system attribute > + * other than tableOID; we cannot expect these to be consistent in a > + * HOT chain, or even to be set correctly yet in the new tuple. > + */ > + if (attrnum < 0) > + { > + if (attrnum != TableOidAttributeNumber) > + continue; > + } > > These two cases need to be considered as the corresponding attribute > is modified, so the attnum needs to be added in the bitmapset of > modified attrs. Yeah right. > > I have changed this and various other comments in the patch. I have > modified the docs as well to reflect the changes. I thought of adding > a test but I think the current test in toast.sql seems sufficient. > Kindly let me know what you think of the attached? I think we should > backpatch this till v10. What do you think? Looks fine to me. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: