Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

On 2023-Feb-16, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

> On 2/16/23 12:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > I don't think this is the fault of logical replication.  Consider that
> > for the backend server, the function source code is just an opaque
> > string that is given to the plpgsql engine to interpret.  So there's no
> > way for the logical DDL replication engine to turn this into runnable
> > code if the table name is not qualified.
> 
> Sure, that's fair. That said, the example above would fall under a "typical
> use case", i.e. I'm replicating functions that call tables without schema
> qualification. This is pretty common, and as logical replication becomes
> used for more types of workloads (e.g. high availability), we'll definitely
> see this.

Hmm, I think you're saying that replay should turn check_function_bodies
off, and I think I agree with that.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El hombre nunca sabe de lo que es capaz hasta que lo intenta" (C. Dickens)