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 |
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" |