Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-18T11:16:53Z
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 2020-03-18 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.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services