Re: adding partitioned tables to publications

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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