Skip to content

docs(pgd): Clarify origin_node_group matching semantics for 5.9 and 6.4#7187

Merged
mpfuster merged 2 commits into
developfrom
dev/fi/BDR-7611
Jun 30, 2026
Merged

docs(pgd): Clarify origin_node_group matching semantics for 5.9 and 6.4#7187
mpfuster merged 2 commits into
developfrom
dev/fi/BDR-7611

Conversation

@irionr

@irionr irionr commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In 5.9 the GUC-override path matched only the node's own group, while the default_commit_scope path walked ancestors — an asymmetry that caused silent async fallback when SET LOCAL bdr.commit_scope was used with a scope defined on a parent group. In 6.4 the GUC path was fixed to also walk ancestors (commit 776e243b13), so both paths now behave consistently.

Replace the vague "directly or indirectly related" sentence in both versions with precise, version-accurate descriptions. The 5.9 entry explains the route-dependent split and adds a warning callout for the silent-fallback trap. The 6.4 entry describes the unified ancestor-walk behaviour.

BDR-7611

In 5.9 the GUC-override path matched only the node's own group, while
the default_commit_scope path walked ancestors — an asymmetry that
caused silent async fallback when SET LOCAL bdr.commit_scope was used
with a scope defined on a parent group. In 6.4 the GUC path was fixed
to also walk ancestors (commit 776e243b13), so both paths now behave
consistently.

Replace the vague "directly or indirectly related" sentence in both
versions with precise, version-accurate descriptions. The 5.9 entry
explains the route-dependent split and adds a warning callout for the
silent-fallback trap. The 6.4 entry describes the unified ancestor-walk
behaviour.

BDR-7611
@irionr irionr requested a review from a team as a code owner June 30, 2026 14:12
@mpfuster mpfuster self-assigned this Jun 30, 2026
@mpfuster mpfuster added deploy Add this label to a PR and it will automatically be deployed to netlify pgd oncall labels Jun 30, 2026
@mpfuster

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks @irionr , do you need we need to port the note you added for 5.9 all throughout the following versions up to 6.4?

@irionr

irionr commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks @irionr , do you need we need to port the note you added for 5.9 all throughout the following versions up to 6.4?

probably yes, the change is only from 6.4 onwards

@irionr

irionr commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks @irionr , do you need we need to port the note you added for 5.9 all throughout the following versions up to 6.4?

probably yes, the change is only from 6.4 onwards

event hough , we have the latest minors updated I think it's fine like this.
No port to the other versions.

@mpfuster mpfuster left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@mpfuster mpfuster merged commit 3e598c9 into develop Jun 30, 2026
11 checks passed
@mpfuster mpfuster deleted the dev/fi/BDR-7611 branch June 30, 2026 16:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

deploy Add this label to a PR and it will automatically be deployed to netlify oncall pgd

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants