| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collect ALTER PUBLICATION commands for event triggers |
| Date: | 2026-07-24 13:59:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFsLEMs1FmkK8Ff8WhD2zNiavPfpjsRHWYHgHv5638hCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 9:03 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I suspect this wasn't caught earlier because handling the dropped publication
> relation was sufficient to deparse it into the original ALTER PUBLICATION
> command (by combining multiple dropped items). I also assumed the primary use
> case for the event trigger was deparsing. I'm not opposed to also catching this
> command in ddl_end - I'm just curious whether it would address any additional
> use cases beyond what's already covered.
sql_drop may be sufficient for deparsing those cases. My concern is that
ddl_command_end fires, but pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() reports
no corresponding ALTER PUBLICATION entry, which seems inconsistent
from a command-level auditing/logging perspective. So at least for me,
collecting the publication itself seems the right approach...
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-07-24 14:12:07 | Re: Collect ALTER PUBLICATION commands for event triggers |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2026-07-24 13:55:58 | Re: pg_class.reltuples can become non-finite and never recovers |