Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:26 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 06:49:42PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > We have to choose one of the approaches between 0001 and 0008. I feel
> > we don't need an intermediate ObjTree representation as that adds
> > overhead and an additional layer which is not required. As mentioned
> > in my previous email I think as a first step we should merge 0001 and
> > 0008 and avoid having an additional ObjTree layer unless you or others
> > feel we need it. I think that will reduce the overall patch size and
> > help us to focus on one of the approaches.
>
> Similar impression here. I found ObjTree actually confusing compared
> to the JSON blobs generated.
>

+1

Please find the new set of patches. It has below changes:

Patch-set Structure related changes to make it more organised:
1) Object-tree removal code (patch 0008 earlier) is now merged to
patch 0001. Now there is no reference of object-tree in the code.
2) Subscription tap-test for DDL Replication (patch 0006 earlier) is
now merged to patch 0003 (DDL Replication one), as it was a single
file change and thus seems more apt to be part of the DDL-Rep patch.
3) test_ddl_deparse_regress module (patch 0004 earlier) is now pulled
out for the time being.

Rest of the changes:
1) CTAS and SELECT INTO support removal. Initial draft aims to support
create,drop and alter-table first.
2) Doc compilation issue fix for 'doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml'.
3) Verbose option removal. Current patch now WAL logs only the
information needed to construct the original DDL statement. Missing
clauses are not part of the final DDL string. I will upload support
for 'expanded' on/off in the next version.
4) Some code refactoring and optimization.

With these changes, I hope the patch-set is somewhat easier to review.

thanks
Shveta