From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
Cc: | tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error. |
Date: | 2017-06-03 02:13:35 |
Message-ID: | 447c8878-a6e5-4045-ee1e-ca63a6946aba@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/27/17 06:54, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 27/05/17 04:00, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> 2017-05-26 21:29 GMT-03:00 Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
>> <mailto:petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>>:
>>
>>
>> Actually another possibility would be to remove the REFRESH keyword
>> completely and just have [ WITH (...) ] and have the refresh option
>> there, ie simplified version of what you have suggested (without the
>> ugliness of specifying refresh twice to disable).
>>
>>
>> It will cause confusion. It seems that WITH sets ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
>> properties. Indeed, they are REFRESH properties. I think we shouldn't
>> exclude REFRESH keyword. Syntax leaves no doubt that WITH are REFRESH
>> properties.
>>
>
> Maybe, I don't know, it might not be that confusing when SET PUBLICATION
> and REFRESH PUBLICATION have same set of WITH options.
I'm not sure what the conclusion from the above discussion was supposed
to be, but here is a patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Fix-ALTER-SUBSCRIPTION-grammar-ambiguity.patch | text/plain | 12.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-03 02:45:03 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-06-03 01:46:00 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |