Re: Isn't "publication" wrongly defined here?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "nico(dot)lichtmaier(at)gmail(dot)com" <nico(dot)lichtmaier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Isn't "publication" wrongly defined here?
Date: 2018-04-28 21:19:10
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbaQGcwpVayCu2GaX-Ja4Uno9koToBnnbKO8Lb75SDcyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Friday, April 27, 2018, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/logical-
> replication-publication.html
> Description:
>
> In section 31.1 it says "A publication is a set of changes generated from a
> table or a group of tables"... that seems wrong. It's a set of relations,
> tables, whatevers. No the changes themselves. Right?
>

It's correct. The subscriber receives ongoing "events" which are the
logical changes to all tables defined within the publication. The items of
interest are the ongoing changes, the list of tables is just a table of
contents for which change sets are present.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Kjäll 2018-04-28 21:31:53 Re: Documentation for CommandComplete is incorrect for CREATE TABLE with server version 10.2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-28 21:11:21 Re: Appendix A. PostgreSQL Error Codes