| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Date: | 2021-09-16 13:48:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+N_=oLbZ_wDtRqmXe1xjH3gu8zNWOsXEMkQqZitSg8Uw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 6:14 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-16, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I think the problem here is that with the proposed grammar we won't be
> > always able to distinguish names at the gram.y stage. Some post
> > parsing analysis is required to attribute the right type to name as is
> > done in the patch.
>
> Doesn't it work to stuff them all into RangeVars? Then you don't need
> to make the node type a monstrosity, just bail out in parse analysis if
> an object spec has more elements in the RV than the object type allows.
>
So, are you suggesting that we store even schema names corresponding
to FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1 [, ...] grammar in RangeVars in some
way (say store schema name in relname or schemaname field of RangeVar)
at gram.y stage and then later extract it from RangeVar? If so, why do
you think it would be better than the current proposed way?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-09-16 13:50:25 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-09-16 13:15:43 | Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails |