| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Added schema level support for publication. |
| Date: | 2021-10-31 21:18:44 |
| Message-ID: | 17355aed-98ce-c85a-47f2-13c550a60266@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 10/28/21 04:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:11 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have fixed this in the v47 version attached.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, the first patch in the series "Allow publishing the tables of
>> schema." looks good to me. Unless there are more
>> comments/bugs/objections, I am planning to commit it in a day or so.
>>
>
> Yesterday, I have pushed the first patch. Feel free to submit the
> remaining patches.
>
I haven't been following this thread recently, but while rebasing the
sequence decoding patch I noticed this adds
PUBLICATIONOBJ_TABLE, /* Table type */
PUBLICATIONOBJ_REL_IN_SCHEMA, /* Relations in schema type */
Shouldn't it be PUBLICATIONOBJ_TABLE_IN_SCHEMA, or why does it use rel
instead of table?
I'm asking because the sequence decoding patch mimics ALTER PUBLICATION
options for sequences, including ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA etc. and this
seems ambiguous. The same issue applies to PUBLICATIONOBJ_CURRSCHEMA,
which does not specify the object type.
I wonder if it'd be better to just separate the schema and object type
specification, instead of mashing it into a single constant. Otherwise
we'll end up with (M x N) combinations, which seems silly.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2021-10-31 21:24:38 | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-10-31 21:04:54 | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |