Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber.

On 2025-08-01 Fr 8:24 PM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Saturday, August 2, 2025 12:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 2025-08-01 Fr 11:03 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 1, 2025 8:56 PM Andrew Dunstan mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> We have another example to consider: pg_amcheck, which allows users to
>>>>> specify multiple databases.
>>>> I don't think that's quite the point, as I understand it. pg_amcheck might
>>>> allow you to have multiple --database arguments, but I don't think it depends
>>>> on the order of arguments. You didn't answer his question about what
>>>> getopt_long() does. I don't recall if it is free to mangle the argument order.
>>> I think you might misunderstand my proposal. I am suggesting an alternative
>>> interface style that employs database-qualified table names, which doesn't
>>> depend on the order of options. This style is already used by pg_amcheck when
>>> dealing with multiple database specifications. I referenced pg_amcheck as an
>>> example.
>> I simple took your own description: The attached patch introduces a new
>> '--table' option that can be specified after each '--database' argument. Maybe I
>> need some remedial English, but to me that "after" says that argument order is
>> significant.
> Allow me to clarify the situation. The description you referenced is the
> original interface proposed by the author in the initial email. However, it was
> found to be unstable due to its reliance on the argument order. In response to
> the discussion, instead of supporting the original interface, I suggested an
> alternative interface to consider, which is the one that does not depend on
> argument order, as I mentioned in my previous email.
>

Apologies, then, I misread the thread.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com