Horton

Re: adding partitioned tables to publications

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-04T15:22:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE issue

  2. Allow publishing partition changes via ancestors

  3. Add logical replication support to replicate into partitioned tables

  4. Refactor code to look up local replication tuple

  5. Some refactoring of logical/worker.c

  6. Prepare to support non-tables in publications

  7. Support adding partitioned tables to publication

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> One thing to I must clarify: coverage for most of pgoutput.c looks
> okay on each run.  I am concerned that the coverage for the code added
> by the patch is shown to be close to zero, which is a mystery to me,
> because I can confirm by other means such as debugging elogs() to next
> to the new code that the newly added tests do cover them.

According to

https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/replication/pgoutput/index.html

the coverage is pretty good.  Maybe you're doing something wrong
in enabling coverage testing locally?

			regards, tom lane