Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses

From: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses
Date: 2026-09-15 10:56:10
Message-ID: CABdArM5AXL7xN2c7CnUYhUw-kRdMw0WUAxMXMeEjzDV91tVDEw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 2:01 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The attached v2 version patch has the changes for the same. This also
> addresses Hou's comments from [1].
>

Thanks for the patch. I tested it across object reporting, address
resolution and error paths, event triggers, and dependency reporting,
and did not find any functional issues.

A couple of observations:
1) object_address.sql:105-106
The DO block here runs all accepted object type strings through
pg_get_object_address(). It seems worth adding the new value here as
well:

('operator of access method'), ('function of access method'),
- ('publication namespace'), ('publication relation')
+ ('publication namespace'), ('publication relation'),
+ ('publication excluded relation')
LOOP

2. aclchl.c, dropcmds.c, event_trigger.c, seclabel.c :

case OBJECT_PUBLICATION_REL:
+ case OBJECT_PUBLICATION_EXCLUDED_REL:

The case labels in these places appear to be in alphabetical order.
Should we keep the new case in the same order as well? Not necessary,
but it would keep the existing ordering consistent.

--
Thanks,
Nisha

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Burd 2026-09-15 11:12:31 Re: [PATCH] Corruption Issue: Fix missing tts_tid in ExecForceStoreHeapTuple
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2026-09-15 10:55:47 Re: SSI: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT takes no predicate lock on the returned row