Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
| От | Amit Langote |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+HiwqFm1Hv3PT+6=MRDZyeShJrob9-FxsiOkSS6=j6kFxu9sQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications (Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Rafia, On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:41 AM Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 08:06, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for sharing this case. I hadn't considered it, but you're >> right that it should be handled sensibly. I have fixed table sync >> code to handle this case properly. Could you please check your case >> with the attached updated patch? >> > I was checking this today and found that the behavior doesn't change much with the updated patch. The tables are stillreplicated, just that a select count from parent table shows 0, rest of the partitions including default one has thedata from the publisher. I was expecting more like an error at subscriber saying the table type is not same. > > Please find the attached file for the test case, in case something is unclear. Thanks for the test case. With the latest patch I posted, you'll get the following error on subscriber: create subscription mysub connection 'host=localhost port=5432 dbname=postgres' publication mypub; ERROR: cannot use relation "public.t" as logical replication target DETAIL: "public.t" is a regular table on subscription side whereas a partitioned table on publication side Although to be honest, I'd rather not see the error. As I mentioned in my email earlier, it'd be nice to be able sync a partitioned table and a regular table (or vice versa) via replication. Thanks, Amit
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: