| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Arkhena <Arkhena(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: error message when subscription target is a partitioned table |
| Date: | 2019-01-11 01:50:32 |
| Message-ID: | 250a3bee-0b1e-8eb6-d3ea-4ca0e91d03eb@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019/01/10 19:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 05:58:10PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> The reason I started this thread is due to this Stack Overflow question:
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53554727/logical-replication-and-declarative-partitioning-in-postgresql-11
>>
>> So, it appears that there may be an element of surprise involved in
>> encountering such an error (despite the documentation).
>
> Improving the user experience is definitely a good thing in my
> opinion because the current error message can be confusing, so you
> were right to start this thread. Still I don't agree that classifying
> those relkinds as not supported is right either for consistency with
> the code existing for two years and for the way the code is designed
> to work as rows are replicated on a per-physically-defined relation
> basis.
Okay, I withdraw my objection to the wording proposed by you.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2019-01-11 02:06:59 | Re: Commitfest delayed: extend it? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-01-11 01:18:31 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |