| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Something is rotten in publication drop |
| Date: | 2017-06-20 18:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYXg7McY33+jbWmG=rS-HNUur0S6W8Q8kVNFf7epFimVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> If there are no new insights, I plan to proceed with the attached patch
>> tomorrow. This leaves the existing view and function alone, adds
>> pg_relation_is_publishable() and uses that in psql.
>
> Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder
> why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef?
> If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad.
> There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set.
Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-20 18:42:44 | Re: Typo in insert.sgml |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-20 18:34:26 | Re: Typo in insert.sgml |