Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 825b31ea-ad9f-21d1-29b6-2a494513458d@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-01-07 06:01, Amit Langote wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:25 PM Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> I went through this patch set once again today and here are my two cents. > > Thanks Rafia. > > Rebased and updated to address your comments. Looking through 0001, I think perhaps there is a better way to structure some of the API changes. Instead of passing the root_target_rel to CheckValidResultRel() and CheckCmdReplicaIdentity(), which we only need to check the publication actions of the root table, how about changing GetRelationPublicationActions() to automatically include the publication information of the root table. Then we have that information in the relcache once and don't need to check the base table and the partition root separately at each call site (of which there is only one right now). (Would that work correctly with relcache invalidation?) Similarly, couldn't GetRelationPublications() just automatically take partitioning into account? We don't need the separation between GetRelationPublications() and GetRelationAncestorPublications(). This would also avoid errors of omission, for example the GetRelationPublications() call in ATPrepChangePersistence() doesn't take GetRelationAncestorPublications() into account. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: