Re: Fuzzy thinking in is_publishable_class
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2019-05-07T21:30:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote: > is_publishable_class has a test "relid >= FirstNormalObjectId", > which I think we should drop, for two reasons: > 1. It makes the comment claiming that this function tests the same > things as check_publication_add_relation a lie. > 2. The comment about it claims that the purpose is to reject > information_schema relations, but if that's so, it's ineffective. > We consider it supported to drop and recreate information_schema, > and have indeed recommended doing so for some minor-version > upgrades. After that, the information_schema relations would no > longer have OIDs recognizable to this test. > So what is the motivation for this test? If there's an important > reason for it, we need to find a less fragile way to express it. After further digging around, I wonder whether this test wasn't somehow related to the issue described in https://postgr.es/m/2321.1557263978@sss.pgh.pa.us That doesn't completely make sense, since the restriction on relkind should render it moot whether IsCatalogClass thinks that a toast table is a catalog table, but maybe there's a link? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Fix logical replication's ideas about which type OIDs are built-in.
- b6abc2241ac4 11.4 landed
- 3b505036a129 10.9 landed
- 32ebb35128c3 12.0 landed
-
Improve commentary about hack in is_publishable_class().
- e34ee993fbc3 12.0 landed
-
Clean up the behavior and API of catalog.c's is-catalog-relation tests.
- 2d7d946cd323 12.0 landed