Moving work into new branch for PR against v5_STABLE#406
Moving work into new branch for PR against v5_STABLE#406mason-sharp merged 16 commits intov5_STABLEfrom
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Up to standards ✅🟢 Issues
|
| the `postgresql.conf` file, setting: | ||
|
|
||
| * the `spock.batch_inserts` parameter to `true`. | ||
| * the `spock.conflict_resolution` parameter to `error`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I read the code correctly, there is no such option as 'error':
static const struct config_enum_entry SpockConflictResolvers[] = {
/*
* Disabled until we can clearly define their desired behavior. Jan Wieck
* 2024-08-12
*
* {"error", SPOCK_RESOLVE_ERROR, false}, {"apply_remote",
* SPOCK_RESOLVE_APPLY_REMOTE, false}, {"keep_local",
* SPOCK_RESOLVE_KEEP_LOCAL, false}, {"first_update_wins",
* SPOCK_RESOLVE_FIRST_UPDATE_WINS, false},
*/
{"last_update_wins", SPOCK_RESOLVE_LAST_UPDATE_WINS, false},
{NULL, 0, false}
};
| Optional country code or name associated with the node. The default is | ||
| NULL. | ||
|
|
||
| info |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This field might contain internal fields that affect the conflict-resolution logic. I'm not sure if it was documented somehow, maybe reference here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll need a dev to provide that information @danolivo
@rasifr or @ibrarahmad , is there anything else we should include here?
| ### SYNOPSIS | ||
|
|
||
| `spock.node_info ()` | ||
| spock.node_info() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This place looks like a good place to add all the 'spock_version' stuff described earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rasifr @ibrarahmad Can you share any information missing from this doc page?
No functional changes. Pure formatting: every C function CREATE statement in spock--5.0.0.sql, spock--5.0.0--5.0.1.sql, and spock--5.0.1--5.0.2.sql is reformatted: - One parameter per line, indented two spaces - IN parameter names column-aligned within each function - RETURNS clause on its own line - AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'symbol' on its own line - LANGUAGE C [attributes] as the final line before the semicolon This matches the convention used by PostgreSQL core contrib extensions (pageinspect, amcheck, postgres_fdw, etc.) and makes signatures easier to read and diff.
danolivo
left a comment
danolivo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Almost all is good. Minor changes needed - see comments here and in Slack.
- Rename spock_sub_sync.md → spock_sub_alter_sync.md (sub_sync → sub_alter_sync)
- Delete spock_seq_sync.md (content already in spock_sync_seq.md)
- Rename spock_xact_timestamp_origin.md → spock_xact_commit_timestamp_origin.md
- Remove redundant spock. prefix from spock_version, spock_version_num, spock_max_proto_version, spock_min_proto_version docs
- Update forward_origins default from {all} to {} with explanation in sub_mgmt.md and spock_sub_create.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
| - remote_insert_lsn reported more frequently, on each incoming WAL record, | ||
| not only on a COMMIT, as it was before. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
^ We should remove this section (left over from when targeting main)
Per feedback from Asif - PROCEDURE is deprecated.
… style" Try to avoid updating previously released version-specific sql files. This reverts commit e0d9b80.
4 participants
There is a draft version for review at: TEMP contains the draft version