Re: Logical Implication

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Logical Implication
Date: 2026-09-30 15:09:14
Message-ID: ar0mGmQQz6vI6pts@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 11:51:39PM +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 29/09/2026 22:23, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
>> And +1 for using %nonassoc instead
>
> That's three now.  I'll prepare a new patch.

Thanks. One other thing I'd like to explore a bit more is whether to make
IMPLIES "round-trippable," at least to see how much more complicated it
would be. (I'm happy to do this part BTW).

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radim Marek 2026-09-30 15:38:40 Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) might keep dropped-column data
Previous Message Narayanan Venkateswaran 2026-09-30 15:02:06 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication