From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Better error message for unsupported replication cases |
Date: | 2022-02-15 03:26:36 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+XpAfLfwjB-DKrJH9Q2r7EUwCeXw48HGxV7ztiBhh-Cg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> In [1] there's a complaint that if you try to logically replicate
> a partitioned table from v13-or-later to v12-or-earlier, you get
> "table XXX not found on publisher", which is pretty confusing
> because the publisher certainly does have such a table. That
> happens because fetch_remote_table_info is too aggressive about
> filtering by relkind and doesn't see the relation at all.
> c314c147c improved that, but it wasn't back-patched. I propose
> putting the attached into v10-v12. Maybe the error message
> could be bikeshedded ... is "non-table relation" terminology
> that we use in user-facing messages?
>
The other option could be "logical replication source relation
\"%s.%s\" is not a table". We use a similar message in
CheckSubscriptionRelkind.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-15 03:57:37 | Re: Time to drop plpython2? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-15 03:20:15 | Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication |