From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Shubham Khanna' <khannashubham1197(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
Date: | 2025-08-01 16:58:34 |
Message-ID: | 47991700-58f8-4735-9ca1-3c48ddb71cbe@dunslane.net |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-08-01 Fr 11:03 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Friday, August 1, 2025 8:56 PM Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 2025-08-01 Fr 4:03 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 28, 2025 1:07 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
>>> mailto:kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>>>> Dear Shubham,
>>>>
>>>> The attached patch introduces a new '--table' option that can be specified
>>>> after each '--database' argument.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have another example which we consider the ordering of options? I'm
>>>> unsure for it. Does getopt_long() always return parsed options with the
>>>> specified order?
>>>>
>>>> The syntax is like that used in 'vacuumdb' and supports multiple '--table'
>>>> arguments per database, including optional column lists and row filters.
>>>>
>>>> Vacuumdb nor pg_restore do not accept multiple --database, right? I'm afraid
>>>> that current API has too complex.
>>> We have another example to consider: pg_amcheck, which allows users to specify
>>> multiple databases.
>> I don't think that's quite the point, as I understand it. pg_amcheck might
>> allow you to have multiple --database arguments, but I don't think it depends
>> on the order of arguments. You didn't answer his question about what
>> getopt_long() does. I don't recall if it is free to mangle the argument order.
> I think you might misunderstand my proposal. I am suggesting an alternative
> interface style that employs database-qualified table names, which doesn't
> depend on the order of options. This style is already used by pg_amcheck when
> dealing with multiple database specifications. I referenced pg_amcheck as an
> example.
I simple took your own description:
The attached patch introduces a new '--table' option that can be
specified after each '--database' argument.
Maybe I need some remedial English, but to me that "after" says that
argument order is significant.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-08-01 17:00:48 | Re: Fix a typo of comments in AutoVacLauncherMain |
Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2025-08-01 16:15:02 | Question on adl_next_worker condition in autovacuum launcher |