| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations |
| Date: | 2022-04-28 12:13:25 |
| Message-ID: | ab1e4808-7cce-0905-377a-a174bce091ea@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27.04.22 11:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Now, another possibility is to say "naah, this is too hard", or even
> "naah, there's no time to write all that for this release". That might
> be okay, but in that case let's add an implementation restriction to
> ensure that we don't paint ourselves in a corner regarding what is
> reasonable behavior. For example, an easy restriction might be: if a
> table is in multiple publications with mismatching row filters/column
> lists, then a subscriber is not allowed to subscribe to both
> publications. (Maybe this restriction isn't exactly what we need so
> that it actually implements what we need, not sure). Then, if/when in
> the future we implement this correctly, we can lift the restriction.
My feeling is also that we should prohibit the combinations that we
cannot make work correctly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-28 12:26:25 | Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2022-04-28 12:07:45 | Re: Multi-Master Logical Replication |