| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci(at)gmail(dot)com>, japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: row filtering for logical replication |
| Date: | 2021-11-04 03:08:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jwx2uR5EygY6OQQxM8SLqjxFxOB+yvJc9UWFVX7p+tLg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:17 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> PROPOSAL
>
> I propose that we change the way duplicate tables are processed to
> make it so that it is always the *last* one that takes effect (instead
> of the *first* one).
>
I don't have a good reason to prefer one over another but I think if
we do this then we should document the chosen behavior. BTW, why not
give an error if the duplicate table is present and any one of them or
both have row-filters? I think the current behavior makes sense
because it makes no difference if the table is present more than once
in the list but with row-filter it can make difference so it seems to
me that giving an error should be considered.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-04 03:21:36 | RE: row filtering for logical replication |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-11-04 02:56:40 | Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c? |