Re: Functions 'is_publishable_class' and 'is_publishable_relation' should stay together.

On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 6:59 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 30, 2022 7:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, I checked the commit and the functions I was talking about
> > > > look OK now. However, looking again, pg_relation_is_publishable is
> > > > in the wrong place (should be right below is_publishable_relaton),
> > > > and I wonder why aren't get_publication_oid and get_publication_name in
> > lsyscache.c.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, both these suggestions make sense to me. Similarly, I think
> > > functions get_subscription_name and get_subscription_oid should also
> > > be moved to lsyscache.c.
> > >
> >
> > Attached, find a patch to address the above comments.
> >
> > Note that (a) I didn't change the comment atop pg_relation_is_publishable to
> > refer to the actual function name instead of 'above' as it seems it can be an SQL
> > variant for both the above functions. (b) didn't need to include pg_publication.h
> > in lsyscache.c even after moving code to that file as the code is compiled even
> > without that.
>
> The patch LGTM. I also ran the headerscheck and didn't find any problem.
>

Thanks, I have pushed the patch.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.