Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, YeXiu <1518981153(at)qq(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Skipping schema changes in publication
Date: 2026-03-10 04:54:48
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KTW78BMmrHXy2c_UUFa8MxxTuzLe8dnEaKFGXH1x0mEg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 4:23 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> This is addressed in the v60 version patch attached.
> Also Nisha's comments from [1] and Shveta's comments from [2] are
> handled in the v60 version.
>

*
+ /* Check that user is allowed to manipulate the publication. */
+ if (excepttables && !pubform->puballtables)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
+ errmsg("publication \"%s\" is not defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
+ NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
+ errdetail("Except tables cannot be added to or dropped from
publications that are not defined as FOR ALL TABLES."));
+
+ /*
+ * SET ALL TABLES is allowed only for publications defined as FOR ALL
+ * TABLES.
+ */
+ if (stmt->action == AP_SetObjects && !pubform->puballtables &&
+ !tables && !excepttables && !schemaidlist)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
+ errmsg("publication \"%s\" is not defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
+ NameStr(pubform->pubname)));
+
+ /* Only a superuser can add or remove EXCEPT tables */
+ if (stmt->action == AP_SetObjects &&
+ (excepttables || (!tables && !excepttables && !schemaidlist)) &&
+ !superuser())
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
+ errmsg("must be superuser to add or drop except tables"));

All the above checks are trying to drive the answer to whether the new
Alter statement is for_all_tables via indirect checks. Why not keep
for_all_tables boolean variable in AlterPublicationStmt similar to
CreatePublicationStmt? That should simplify the above checks.

* Also, the superuser check should be earlier in the code, say just
after following existing check:
if ((stmt->action == AP_AddObjects || stmt->action == AP_SetObjects) &&
schemaidlist && !superuser())
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
errmsg("must be superuser to add or set schemas")));

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Madhav Madhusoodanan 2026-03-10 05:09:07 Re: [WiP] B-tree page merge during vacuum to reduce index bloat
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-03-10 03:58:36 Re: Change checkpoint‑record‑missing PANIC to FATAL