Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error.

From: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error.
Date: 2017-05-27 00:13:08
Message-ID: CAHE3wgjp4WPcBzxVh2Y1f_3y9X8tOTuL8cPi6zXpLswdXwPzQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2017-05-26 17:58 GMT-03:00 Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

> On 5/24/17 15:38, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >>> I wonder if we actually need the SKIP REFRESH syntax, there is the
> >>> "REFRESH [ WITH ... ]" when user wants to refresh, so if REFRESH is not
> >>> specified, we can just behave as if SKIP REFRESH was used, it's not
> like
> >>> there is 3rd possible behavior.
> >>
> >> Attached patch does exactly that.
> >
> > And of course I forgot to update docs...
>
> Do we want not-refreshing to be the default behavior?

It is a different behavior from the initial proposal. However, we
fortunately have ALTER SUBSCRIPTION foo REFRESH PUBLICATION and can refresh
later. Also, if "refresh" is more popular than "skip", it is just a small
word in the command. That's the price we pay to avoid ambiguity that the
previous syntax had.At least I think Petr's proposal is less confusing than
mine (my proposal maintains current behavior but can cause some confusion).

--
Euler Taveira Timbira -
http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
<http://www.timbira.com.br>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2017-05-27 00:29:56 Re: ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ..SET PUBLICATION <no name> refresh is not throwing error.
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2017-05-26 23:35:56 Re: logical replication - still unstable after all these months