Horton

Re: adding partitioned tables to publications

amit <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-01-09T10:26:58Z
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

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 7:57 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

I agree.  I had written that comment considering the other feature
where the changes are published as root table's, but even in that case
it'd be wrong to do what it says -- partitioned tables *should* be
included in that case.

I will fix the patches accordingly.

Thanks,
Amit