Re: Review items for EXCEPT TABLE publication

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Review items for EXCEPT TABLE publication
Date: 2026-09-10 12:22:02
Message-ID: CAJpy0uDR1sT_LTd-qJS6MhRV4hyH+WLrfarCiUuMqoLhOR+++w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 5:11 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dear Vignesh,
>
> > Thanks kuroda-san. I have addressed this in the v2 version patch
> > attached, however I did not change the lock mode and used the existing
> > AccessShareLock mode itself as I felt that should suffice. This
> > approach also addresses Chao's comments from [1].
>
> My intention was similar but can we unify codes for re-validation?
> My idea attached here could be applied atop v2.
>

+1. I had similar idea in mind about this patch's correction that we
can pull the code part out in AlterPublication() for both 'if' and
'else' block.

thanks
Shveta

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2026-09-10 12:54:01 Re: Race conditions during parallel worker (unclean) exit
Previous Message Ajit Awekar 2026-09-10 12:21:16 Re: [(known) BUG] DELETE/UPDATE more than one row in partitioned foreign table