Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-04T05:07:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE issue
- 12fb189bfeaf 13.0 landed
-
Allow publishing partition changes via ancestors
- 83fd4532a721 13.0 landed
-
Add logical replication support to replicate into partitioned tables
- f1ac27bfda6c 13.0 landed
-
Refactor code to look up local replication tuple
- d8653f468789 13.0 landed
-
Some refactoring of logical/worker.c
- 97ee604d9bce 13.0 landed
-
Prepare to support non-tables in publications
- c314c147c056 13.0 landed
-
Support adding partitioned tables to publication
- 17b9e7f9fe23 13.0 landed
On 03/04/2020 17:51, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 03/04/2020 16:59, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>> AFAIK gcov can't handle multiple instances of same process being started >>>> as it just overwrites the coverage files. So for TAP test it will report >>>> bogus info (as in some code that's executed will look as not executed). > >>> Hm, really? I routinely run "make check" (ie, parallel regression >>> tests) under coverage, and I get results that seem sane. If I were >>> losing large chunks of the data, I think I'd have noticed. > >> Parallel regression still just starts single postgres instance no? > > But the forked-off children have to write the gcov files independently, > don't they? > Hmm that's very good point. I did see these missing coverage issue when running tests that explicitly start more instances of postgres before though. And with some quick googling, parallel testing seems to be issue with gcov for more people. I wonder if the program checksum that gcov calculates when merging the .gcda data while updating it is somehow different for separately started instances but not for the ones forked from same parent or something. I don't know internals of gcov well enough to say how exactly that works. -- Petr Jelinek 2ndQuadrant - PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/