Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation

From: Bingshuai Li <lucian1412(at)outlook(dot)com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication - revisit `is_table_publication` function implementation
Date: 2026-08-20 08:07:43
Message-ID: ME0P300MB0568621B2DCB04A8209E41FFC6A42@ME0P300MB0568.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I'm fine with either wording ― happy to leave this to the committer.

To answer your question: parts of the analysis were AI-assisted, but the EXCEPT point was verified by an experiment I ran before raising it.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2026-08-20 08:08:29 Re: timeout value overflow in wait for lsn
Previous Message jian he 2026-08-20 07:41:41 Re: MERGE/SPLIT PARTITIONS issues/questions