From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shubham Khanna <khannashubham1197(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajendra Kumar Dangwal <dangwalrajendra888(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, euler(at)eulerto(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |
Date: | 2024-11-06 10:48:29 |
Message-ID: | CALDaNm1hR9-xFZXiK0it_ohn+PvfKTLvoOFhBi7p9oTSRCPJRg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 10:53, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:26 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 7:34 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vignesh,
> > > >
> > > > Here are my review comments for patch v49-0001.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have a question on the display of this new parameter.
> > >
> > > postgres=# \dRp+
> > > Publication pub_gen
> > > Owner | All tables | Inserts | Updates | Deletes | Truncates | Via
> > > root | Generated columns
> > > ----------+------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+----------+-------------------
> > > KapilaAm | f | t | t | t | t | f | t
> > > Tables:
> > > "public.test_gen"
> > >
> > > The current theory for the display of the "Generated Columns" option
> > > could be that let's add new parameters at the end which sounds
> > > reasonable. The other way to look at it is how it would be easier for
> > > users to interpret. I think the value of the "Via root" option should
> > > be either after "All tables" or at the end as that is higher level
> > > table information than operations or column-level information. As
> > > currently, it is at the end, so "Generated Columns" should be added
> > > before.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, I've always felt the CREATE PUBLICATION parameters
> > publish
> > publish_via_root
> > publish_generated_columns
> >
> > Should be documented (e.g. on CREATE PUBLICATION page) in alphabetical order:
> > publish
> > publish_generated_columns
> > publish_via_root
> >
> > ~
> >
> > Following on from that. IMO it will make sense for the describe
> > (\dRp+) columns for those parameters to be in the same order as the
> > parameters in the documentation. So the end result would be the same
> > order as what you are wanting, even though the reason might be
> > different.
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
Updated the documentation and describe output accordingly.
> I have made some minor comments and function name changes in the
> attached. Please include in the next version.
Thanks, I have included the changes.
The attached v50 version patch has the changes for the same.
Regards,
Vignesh
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v50-0002-Tap-tests-for-generated-columns.patch | text/x-patch | 11.8 KB |
v50-0001-Replicate-generated-columns-when-publish_generat.patch | text/x-patch | 100.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-11-06 10:50:34 | Re: further #include cleanup (IWYU) |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-11-06 10:40:25 | Re: Inconsistent RestrictInfo serial numbers |