Re: pg_get_publication_tables() output duplicate relid

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:37 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 4:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:55 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:19 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > As in,
> > > > > do we know of any replication (initial/streaming) misbehavior
> > > > > caused by the duplicate partition OIDs in this case or is the only
> > > > > problem that pg_publication_tables output looks odd?
> > > >
> > > > The latter one but I think either we should document this or change
> > > > it as we can't assume users will follow what subscriber-side code does.
> > >
> > > On second thought, I agree that de-duplicating partitions from this
> > > view is an improvement.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. Hou-San, Can you please submit the updated patch after fixing
> > any pending comments including the test case?
>
> Attach the updated patch which address the comments so far.
>
> The patch only adds a testcase in publication.sql because the duplicate
> output doesn't cause unexpected behavior in pub-sub test.
>

Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have slightly changed the commit
message in the attached. I would like to commit this only in HEAD as
there is no user complaint about this and it might not stop any user's
service unless it relies on this view's output for the initial table
synchronization.

What do you think? Bharath/Amit L., others, do you have any opinion on
this matter?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.