From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
Date: | 2020-01-09 10:26:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqGba7K_bTZy0xQCNtmJCTFG2hAEahaf7uVngxhHy_eQrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 7:57 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-01-07 15:18, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 06:02, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rebased and updated to address your comments.
> >>
> > + <para>
> > + Partitioned tables are not considered when <literal>FOR ALL TABLES</literal>
> > + is specified.
> > + </para>
> > +
> > What is the reason for above, I mean not for the comment but not
> > including partitioned tables in for all tables options.
>
> This comment is kind of a noop, because the leaf partitions are already
> included in FOR ALL TABLES, so whether partitioned tables are considered
> included in FOR ALL TABLES is irrelevant. I suggest removing the
> comment to avoid any confusion.
I agree. I had written that comment considering the other feature
where the changes are published as root table's, but even in that case
it'd be wrong to do what it says -- partitioned tables *should* be
included in that case.
I will fix the patches accordingly.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rafia Sabih | 2020-01-09 10:28:39 | Re: [Logical Replication] TRAP: FailedAssertion("rel->rd_rel->relreplident == REPLICA_IDENTITY_DEFAULT || rel->rd_rel->relreplident == REPLICA_IDENTITY_FULL || rel->rd_rel->relreplident == REPLICA_IDENTITY_INDEX" |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-09 10:15:08 | Re: remove some STATUS_* symbols |