From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG Docs for ALTER SUBSCRIPTION REFRESH PUBLICATION - copy_data option |
Date: | 2021-09-15 03:50:22 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+S3-MMLuNkxE0tPJQrofWm6ifFDSh=GgGyWwyd4-u0Qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 8:49 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 8:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:20 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > But I recently learned that when there are partitions in the
> > > publication, then toggling the value of the PUBLICATION option
> > > "publish_via_partition_root" [3] can also *implicitly* change the list
> > > published tables, and therefore that too might cause any ASRP to make
> > > use of the copy_data value for those implicitly added
> > > partitions/tables.
> > >
> >
> > I have tried the below example in this context but didn't see any
> > effect on changing via_root option.
>
> Thanks for trying to reproduce. I also thought your steps were the
> same as what I'd previously done but it seems like it was a bit
> different. Below are my steps to observe some unexpected COPY
> happening. Actually, now I am no longer sure if this is just a
> documentation issue; perhaps it is a bug.
>
Yeah, this looks odd to me as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-09-15 04:08:00 | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-09-15 03:34:51 | Re: Unicode 14.0.0 update |