| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
| Date: | 2017-01-17 16:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | 41ec9e6d-cafe-b5e0-ef0d-2fb01e958a94@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/01/17 17:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Yes, that will need some discussion about corner case behaviour. For
>> example, have partitioned table 'foo' which is in publication, then you
>> have table 'bar' which is not in publication, you attach it to the
>> partitioned table 'foo', should it automatically be added to
>> publication? Then you detach it, should it then be removed from publication?
>> What if 'bar' was in publication before it was attached/detached to/from
>> 'foo'? What if 'foo' wasn't in publication but 'bar' was? Should we
>> allow ONLY syntax for partitioned table when they are being added and
>> removed?
>
> Let's think about that in a separate thread.
>
Agreed.
>>> reread_subscription() complains if the subscription name was changed.
>>> I don't know why that is a problem.
>>
>> Because we don't have ALTER SUBSCRIPTION RENAME currently. Maybe should
>> be Assert?
>
> Is there anything stopping anyone from implementing it?
>
No, just didn't seem priority for the functionality right now.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-17 16:21:31 | Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-17 16:11:01 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |