Re: REASSIGN OWNED vs. relisshared dep on !relisshared

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, akapila(at)postgresql(dot)org, nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: REASSIGN OWNED vs. relisshared dep on !relisshared
Date: 2026-07-15 18:36:56
Message-ID: 40935c681b3649e8e12cbde4fe86e24a619bc12c.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 20:53 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Thanks for the review

Looks good to me, thank you for the patch. I will commit this soon.

To address Noah's concern: is the concern about the dependency link, or
about having a database-specific oid in a shared catalog at all?

If the former, then we could do the same work manually outside of the
pg_depend mechanism.

If the latter, we could decompose pg_subscription into the columns
necessary for the launcher (shared catalog) and the database-specific
columns (unshared catalog). But that's more invasive so it might not be
v19 material.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message surya poondla 2026-07-15 18:48:35 Re: [DESIGN] Soft DROP TABLE, recoverable drops for PostgreSQL
Previous Message Semih Doğan 2026-07-15 18:30:24 [PATCH] pgbench: fix incorrect long option name in error message