Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Date: 2021-09-06 03:23:39
Message-ID: CAA4eK1L1fsAqsUZGPquPj4SC0AR=PWgEEYvjtzH7_63uL+ricw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 8:11 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-04, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-Sep-02, Rahila Syed wrote:
> > >
> > > > After thinking about this, I think it is best to remove the entire table
> > > > from publication,
> > > > if a column specified in the column filter is dropped from the table.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think it would be cleanest to give responsibility to the user: if
> > > the column to be dropped is in the filter, then raise an error, aborting
> > > the drop.
> >
> > Do you think that will make sense if the user used Cascade (Alter
> > Table ... Drop Column ... Cascade)?
>
> ... ugh. Since CASCADE is already defined to be a potentially-data-loss
> operation, then that may be acceptable behavior. For sure the default
> RESTRICT behavior shouldn't do it, though.
>

That makes sense to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2021-09-06 04:14:01 Re: Unused variable in TAP tests file
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-09-06 03:14:02 Re: PG Docs - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION option list order