| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(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: | 2026-02-20 05:16:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vVFbzNQ__CppQdB6hJ3r+bLuy1XYUL0gou=UY4aeR5wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 5:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 4:08 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 3. Question, what would be the behavior of
> > pg_get_publication_tables(), if we have created PUBLICATION FOR ALL
> > TABLES with EXCEPT, I assume it will give all table even in the EXCEPT
> > list
> >
>
> No, it won't return the tables mentioned in the except list and I
> think that is what we expect from this function.
Yeah logically that makes sense, I got confused because of the another
function with name 'pg_get_publication_effective_tables'
> > as we have another function to get effective tables i.e.
> > pg_get_publication_effective_tables(),
> >
>
> This function is for a different purpose and I think its name can be
> improved, how about pg_get_publication_partitions() or something on
> those lines?
I think the current name is confusing, not sure about what would be a
better name, IMHO pg_get_publication_partitions() is not confusing at
least.
And also ,regarding the naming of is_relid_excepted() and
is_relid_or_ancestor_excepted(), although they accurately reflect the
EXCEPT keyword, "excepted" feels a bit awkward in code. I'd suggest
changing these to is_relid_excluded() and
is_relid_or_ancestor_excluded() for better readability. But if others
think excepted also looks fine and it's just me who doesn't like it
then feel free to ignore this suggestion.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-02-20 05:18:28 | Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2026-02-20 04:40:40 | Re: [PATCH] Support automatic sequence replication |