| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtual generated columns |
| Date: | 2025-01-15 19:46:26 |
| Message-ID: | 314146fd-854e-44b8-ac64-0bef2f2d26b0@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.01.25 08:11, vignesh C wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 19:08, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've also added a patch that addresses logical replication. It
>> basically adds back some of the prohibitions against including generated
>> columns in publications that have been lifted, but this time only for
>> virtual generated columns, and amends the documentation. It doesn't
>> rename the publication option "publish_generated_columns", but maybe
>> that should be done.
>
> There are two potential approaches we could take to address the
> "publish_generated_columns" option: a) We could support multiple
> values for publish_generated_columns, such as 'none', 'stored', and
> 'virtual', as Amit suggested in [1]. b) Alternatively, we could rename
> publish_generated_columns to publish_stored_generated_columns.
> Both options seem reasonable to me. Do you have a preference for which
> approach would be better?
I have a very weak preference for a).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-01-15 19:47:18 | Re: convert libpgport's pqsignal() to a void function |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-01-15 19:37:58 | Re: Virtual generated columns |