From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG DOCS - logical replication filtering |
Date: | 2022-04-12 03:52:32 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JHnU_PK_JwRnjDTkX1ztW+YurVibL2iKvLy5G4snWHLw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:03 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022, at 7:40 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Regarding the new examples (for partitioned tables), shouldn't we move the
> parent / child definitions to the beginning of the Examples section?
>
I think that will make examples less clear.
> It seems
> confusing use the same code snippet to show repeated table definitions
> (publisher and subscriber). I checked fast and after a few seconds I realized
> that the example is not wrong but the database name has a small difference (one
> letter "s" x "p").
>
Can you be more specific? AFAICS, dbname used (testpub) is same.
> The publication and subscription definitions are fine there.
>
> I think reusing the same tables and publication introduces complexity.
> Shouldn't we just use different tables and publication to provide an "easy"
> example? It would avoid DROP PUBLICATION, ALTER SUBSCRIPTION and TRUNCATE.
>
I don't know. I find the current way understandable. I feel using
different names won't gain much and make the example difficult to
follow.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-04-12 03:56:12 | Re: pg_walinspect - a new extension to get raw WAL data and WAL stats |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-04-12 03:49:48 | Re: pgsql: Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_comman |