From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... ADD/DROP PUBLICATION ... syntax |
Date: | 2021-02-10 13:49:51 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACXqcrrpdOvhDyN+rZnB9iuxEvaYTJ94uT9eRHJdaSb35w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 6:51 PM japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 at 17:50, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We will get cell == NULL when we iterate all items in publist. I use it
> to check whether the dropped publication is in publist or not.
>
> > If you
> > have a strong reasong retain this error errmsg("publication name
> > \"%s\" do not in subscription", then there's a typo
> > errmsg("publication name \"%s\" does not exists in subscription".
>
> Fixed.
I think we still have a typo in 0002, it's
+ errmsg("publication name \"%s\" does not exist
in subscription",
instead of
+ errmsg("publication name \"%s\" does not exists
in subscription",
IIUC, with the current patch, the new ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... ADD/DROP
errors out on the first publication that already exists/that doesn't
exist right? What if there are multiple publications given in the
ADD/DROP list, and few of them exist/don't exist. Isn't it good if we
loop over the subscription's publication list and show all the already
existing/not existing publications in the error message, instead of
just erroring out for the first existing/not existing publication?
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-02-10 14:25:58 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-02-10 13:46:06 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |