Re: Something is rotten in publication drop

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Something is rotten in publication drop
Date: 2017-06-20 01:57:32
Message-ID: 25259.1497923852@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If there are no new insights, I plan to proceed with the attached patch
> tomorrow. This leaves the existing view and function alone, adds
> pg_relation_is_publishable() and uses that in psql.

Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder
why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef?
If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad.
There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-06-20 02:01:01 Re: Rules on table partitions
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-06-20 01:55:00 Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table