| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtual generated columns |
| Date: | 2025-01-15 07:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm2v-TcAcddXtGOx+CQQ8VnQ3qvkMfEWSRipGj8az0QejQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 19:08, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> I've also added a patch that addresses logical replication. It
> basically adds back some of the prohibitions against including generated
> columns in publications that have been lifted, but this time only for
> virtual generated columns, and amends the documentation. It doesn't
> rename the publication option "publish_generated_columns", but maybe
> that should be done.
There are two potential approaches we could take to address the
"publish_generated_columns" option: a) We could support multiple
values for publish_generated_columns, such as 'none', 'stored', and
'virtual', as Amit suggested in [1]. b) Alternatively, we could rename
publish_generated_columns to publish_stored_generated_columns.
Both options seem reasonable to me. Do you have a preference for which
approach would be better?
Regards,
Vignesh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-15 07:14:48 | Re: [PATCH] Hex-coding optimizations using SVE on ARM. |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-01-15 06:58:02 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |