From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
Date: | 2020-03-18 14:19:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqF-eZ91mph5L9rtRbm8kXUCHSa01-Zo5RAqWm2FpPF7Kg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-03-18 04:06, Amit Langote wrote:
> > + if (isnull || !remote_is_publishable)
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > + (errmsg("table \"%s.%s\" on the publisher is not publishable",
> > + nspname, relname)));
> >
> > Maybe add a one-line comment above this to say it's an "not supposed
> > to happen" error or am I missing something? Wouldn't elog() suffice
> > for this?
>
> On second thought, maybe we should just drop this check. The list of
> tables that is part of the publication was already filtered by the
> publisher, so this query doesn't need to check it again. We just need
> the relkind to be able to construct the COPY command, but we don't need
> to second-guess it beyond that.
Agreed.
--
Thank you,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2020-03-18 14:29:38 | Re: SupportRequestSimplify and SQL SRF |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-18 14:17:20 | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |