Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber.

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

To: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, 'Shubham Khanna' <khannashubham1197@gmail.com>

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

Date: 2025-08-01T12:56:07Z

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 →

Support existing publications in pg_createsubscriber.
- 85ddcc2f4cde 19 (unreleased) landed

On 2025-08-01 Fr 4:03 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Monday, July 28, 2025 1:07 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Dear Shubham,
>>
>>> The attached patch introduces a new '--table' option that can be
>>> specified after each '--database' argument.
>> Do we have another example which we consider the ordering of options? I'm
>> unsure
>> for it. Does getopt_long() always return parsed options with the specified
>> order?
>>
>>> The syntax is like that used in 'vacuumdb'
>>> and supports multiple '--table' arguments per database, including
>>> optional column lists and row filters.
>> Vacuumdb nor pg_restore do not accept multiple --database, right?
>> I'm afraid that current API has too complex.
> We have another example to consider: pg_amcheck, which allows users to specify
> multiple databases.


I don't think that's quite the point, as I understand it. pg_amcheck 
might allow you to have multiple --database arguments, but I don't think 
it depends on the order of arguments. You didn't answer his question 
about what getopt_long() does. I don't recall if it is free to mangle 
the argument order.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com