| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Added schema level support for publication. |
| Date: | 2021-09-14 05:08:40 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB57163FE828F62DA6209E151594DA9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From Tue, Sept 14, 2021 11:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 6.
> > I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables
> > and the list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication
> > should only contain the tables and all tables in schemas which user
> > specified. If user only specified all tables in schema, and didn't
> > specify tables, the tables which used to be part of the publication
> > should be dropped, too. But currently, if I didn't specify tables, the list of
> tables wouldn't be set to empty. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I think we can go either way here but it seems like we should drop the tables in
> the case you mentioned. The idea is that the SET variant in ALTER PUBLICATION
> should replace the set of tables and schemas for the publication which seems
> to be in line with the current behavior where we replace the set of tables.
>
> Anyone else wants to weigh in on this?
I agree that the one SET variant should replaces both the list-of-tables and the list-of-schemas.
Best regards,
Hou zj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-09-14 05:19:14 | Re: straightening out backend process startup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-09-14 05:05:23 | Re: Don't clean up LLVM state when exiting in a bad way |