From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error. |
Date: | 2017-05-24 19:21:20 |
Message-ID: | 97c0ef4a-7ebf-99e4-9b6f-0f6d3781d688@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/05/17 21:07, Euler Taveira wrote:
> 2017-05-23 6:00 GMT-03:00 tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> <mailto:tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>>:
>
>
> s=# alter subscription s1 set publication skip refresh ;
> NOTICE: removed subscription for table public.t
> NOTICE: removed subscription for table public.t1
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
> s=#
>
>
> That's a design flaw. Since SKIP is not a reserved word, parser consider
> it as a publication name. Instead of causing an error, it executes
> another command (REFRESH) that is the opposite someone expects. Also, as
> "skip" is not a publication name, it removes all tables in the subscription.
>
Ah that explains why I originally added the ugly NOREFRESH keyword.
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION name SET PUBLICATION publication_name_list SKIP REFRESH
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION name SET PUBLICATION publication_name_list REFRESH
> opt_definition
>
> I think the first command was a bad design. Why don't we transform SKIP
> REFRESH into a REFRESH option?
>
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub1 SET PUBLICATION pub1 REFRESH WITH (skip = true);
>
> skip (boolean): specifies that the command will not try to refresh table
> information. The default is false.
That's quite confusing IMHO, saying REFRESH but then adding option to
actually not refresh is not a good interface.
I wonder if we actually need the SKIP REFRESH syntax, there is the
"REFRESH [ WITH ... ]" when user wants to refresh, so if REFRESH is not
specified, we can just behave as if SKIP REFRESH was used, it's not like
there is 3rd possible behavior.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-24 19:28:39 | Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error. |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-24 19:14:31 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |