Horton

Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, rajesh singarapu <rajesh.rs0541@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-10-06T21:30:09Z
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. Add a run_as_owner option to subscriptions.

  2. Refactor pgoutput_change().

  3. Print the correct aliases for DML target tables in ruleutils.

  4. Fix object identity string for transforms

  5. Add grantable MAINTAIN privilege and pg_maintain role.

  6. Get rid of recursion-marker values in enum AlterTableType

  7. Release cache tuple when no longer needed

  8. Empty search_path in logical replication apply worker and walsender.

  9. Refactor format_type APIs to be more modular

  10. Use wrappers of PG_DETOAST_DATUM_PACKED() more.

Attachments

> > Some tweaking is made in deparse_drop_command in order to make DROP
> > TRANSFORM deparsing work. This is because the objidentity captured in
> > currentEventTriggerState->SQLDropList contains the keyword 'on', for
> > example "for typename on language lang", but the keyword 'on' is not
> > needed in the current DROP TRANSFORM syntax. So we need to remove the
> > 'on' keyword in objidentity. I'm not sure if this is the best way to
> > handle it, maybe we can consider directly modifying what's captured in
> > currentEventTriggerState->SQLDropList
> > so we don't have the "on" keyword to begin with?
>
> The exact output format for identity is not set in stone; we should only
> set it in stone once we have an actual working case for them.  This is
> the first such use, so it seems OK to make minor modifications (such as
> removing an undesirable ON) if it's a reasonable change and allows
> consumer code to be more easily written.

> So, +1 to dropping ON here.  However, if there are further strings that
> need to be modified, let's see what they are.

Thanks for confirming. Attaching the new patch set that removes the
undesirable ON from getObjectIdentityParts() for TRANSFORM.

Regards,
Zheng