From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
Date: | 2020-03-19 08:05:32 |
Message-ID: | de683090-6dcd-7f8e-3bcc-955c427c60ca@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-03-18 15:19, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2020-03-18 04:06, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> + if (isnull || !remote_is_publishable)
>>> + ereport(ERROR,
>>> + (errmsg("table \"%s.%s\" on the publisher is not publishable",
>>> + nspname, relname)));
>>>
>>> Maybe add a one-line comment above this to say it's an "not supposed
>>> to happen" error or am I missing something? Wouldn't elog() suffice
>>> for this?
>>
>> On second thought, maybe we should just drop this check. The list of
>> tables that is part of the publication was already filtered by the
>> publisher, so this query doesn't need to check it again. We just need
>> the relkind to be able to construct the COPY command, but we don't need
>> to second-guess it beyond that.
>
> Agreed.
Committed with that change then.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | asaba.takanori@fujitsu.com | 2020-03-19 08:10:58 | RE: ssl passphrase callback |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-03-19 07:55:30 | Re: PATCH: Add uri percent-encoding for binary data |