Re: logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"
Date: 2017-06-10 06:02:19
Message-ID: CAMkU=1w=bj5tsSh4PoATF7uPS_-NtE=AEG-SrvggD-ijXk9Pfw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If I create a publication "for all tables", \dRp+ doesn't indicate it is
> for
> > all tables, it just gives a list of the tables.
> >
> > So it doesn't distinguish between a publication specified to be for all
> > tables (which will be dynamic regarding future additions), and one which
> > just happens to include all the table which currently exist.
> >
> > That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as
> another
> > column in \dRp and \dRp+, or at least as a footnote tag in \dRp+ ?
> >
>
> +1. I was thinking the same. Attached patch adds "All Tables" column
> to both \dRp and \dRp+.
>
>
Looks good to me. Attached with regression test expected output changes.

Cheers,

Jeff

Attachment Content-Type Size
psql_publication_v2.patch application/octet-stream 9.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2017-06-10 06:31:53 Re: BUG #14680: startup process on standby encounter a deadlock of TwoPhaseStateLock when redo 2PC xlog
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-06-10 05:20:58 Re: logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"