Re: Added schema level support for publication.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:31 PM tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 2:13 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I have implemented this in the 0003 patch, I have kept it separate to
> > reduce the testing effort and also it will be easier if someone
> > disagrees with the syntax. I will merge it to the main patch later
> > based on the feedback. Attached v22 patch has the changes for the
> > same.
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Thanks for your new patch. Here are some suggestions:
>
> 1.
> If a publication published a table and the schema where the table belonged to, the
> publication name would show twice when using '\d+' for the table.
> Maybe we should add some check to avoid the duplication. Thought?
>
> For example:
>
> create schema sch1;
> create table sch1.tbl(a int);
> create publication pub for table sch1.tbl, all tables in schema sch1;
>
> postgres=# \d+ sch1.tbl
> Table "sch1.tbl"
> Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage | Compression | Stats target | Description
> --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+---------+-------------+--------------+-------------
> a | integer | | | | plain | | |
> Publications:
> "pub"
> "pub"
> Access method: heap

Modified

> 2. doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
> @@ -6169,6 +6174,7 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$<replaceable>&lt;iteration count&gt;</replaceable>:<replaceable>&l
> publication instead of its own.
> </para></entry>
> </row>
> +
> </tbody>
> </tgroup>
> </table>
>
> It seems that we don't need this change.

Modified

> 3. src/bin/psql/tab-complete.c
>
> + /* Complete "CREATE PUBLICATION <name> FOR SCHEMA <schema>, ..." */
> + else if (HeadMatches("CREATE", "PUBLICATION", MatchAny, "FOR", "ALL", "TABLES", "IN", "SCHEMA"))
> + COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_schemas
> + " UNION SELECT 'CURRENT_SCHEMA' "
> + "UNION SELECT 'WITH ('");
>
> The comment should be updated to "FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA".

Modified.

I have fixed these comments as part of v23 patch attached at [1].
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0xmqJeQEfV5Wnj2BawM%3DsdFdfOXz5N%2BgGG3WB6k9%3Dtdw%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Vignesh