| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op? |
| Date: | 2017-04-17 05:46:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobyyOuGRHfgwVrdJvbVkVYJC9Pm6NewkhSVvnvFXdfbQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> By the way, Petr said in the other thread that it could be made a no-op
> (presumably without requiring IF NOT EXISTS) on the grounds that
> membership of table in publication is "soft object" or "property" rather
> than real object.
I don't find that argument terribly convincing.
The nearest parallel that we have for this is probably:
ALTER EXTENSION name ADD member_object;
ALTER EXTENSION name DROP member_object;
I would guess this ought to work similarly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-04-17 05:51:45 | pgbench tap tests & minor fixes |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-04-17 05:39:37 | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |