| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-05-27 10:54:50 |
| Message-ID: | 73df903e-1ae5-b5fa-6e6e-0a397d10edd8@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-27 13:44:05 | Re: logical replication busy-waiting on a lock |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-05-27 10:13:19 | Re: logical replication - still unstable after all these months |