Re: adding partitioned tables to publications

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

To: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2020-01-08T10:57:13Z

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 →

Fix RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE issue
- 12fb189bfeaf 13.0 landed
Allow publishing partition changes via ancestors
- 83fd4532a721 13.0 landed
Add logical replication support to replicate into partitioned tables
- f1ac27bfda6c 13.0 landed
Refactor code to look up local replication tuple
- d8653f468789 13.0 landed
Some refactoring of logical/worker.c
- 97ee604d9bce 13.0 landed
Prepare to support non-tables in publications
- c314c147c056 13.0 landed
Support adding partitioned tables to publication
- 17b9e7f9fe23 13.0 landed

On 2020-01-07 15:18, Rafia Sabih wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 06:02, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rebased and updated to address your comments.
>>
> +  <para>
> +   Partitioned tables are not considered when <literal>FOR ALL TABLES</literal>
> +   is specified.
> +  </para>
> +
> What is the reason for above, I mean not for the comment but not
> including partitioned tables in for all tables options.

This comment is kind of a noop, because the leaf partitions are already 
included in FOR ALL TABLES, so whether partitioned tables are considered 
included in FOR ALL TABLES is irrelevant.  I suggest removing the 
comment to avoid any confusion.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services