Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation
Date: 2026-07-22 02:35:55
Message-ID: CAHut+Pv_uej+CEJha8ANwUSoESKZWAimFXrXvW9TWsCWNMj7Eg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:49 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> This patch had received positive feedback in the last post, but the
> thread has been inactive for about 5 weeks. What can I do to help get
> this pushed?
>

I've added a CF entry.

=======
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/7042/

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2026-07-22 02:46:31 Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES
Previous Message Peter Smith 2026-07-22 02:08:29 Re: Add missing period to DETAIL messages