Re: adding partitioned tables to publications

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 4:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-11-22 07:28, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> >> What happens when you add a leaf table directly to a publication? Is it
> >> replicated under its own identity or under its ancestor partitioned
> >> table? (What if both the leaf table and a partitioned table are
> >> publication members?)
> >
> > If both a leaf partition and an ancestor belong to the same
> > publication, then leaf partition changes are replicated using the
> > ancestor's schema. For a leaf partition to be replicated using its
> > own schema it must be published via a separate publication that
> > doesn't contain the ancestor. At least that's what the current patch
> > does.
>
> Hmm, that seems confusing. This would mean that if you add a
> partitioned table to a publication that already contains leaf tables,
> the publication behavior of the leaf tables would change. So again, I
> think this alternative behavior of publishing partitions under the name
> of their root table should be an explicit option on a publication, and
> then it should be ensured somehow that individual partitions are not
> added to the publication in confusing ways.
>

Yeah, it can probably detect and throw an error for such cases.

> So, it's up to you which aspect of this you want to tackle, but I
> thought your original goal of being able to add partitioned tables to
> publications and have that implicitly expand to all member partitions on
> the publication side seemed quite useful, self-contained, and
> uncontroversial.
>

+1.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com