On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:42 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reading Alvaro's email at the top again gave me a pause to reconsider
> > what I had said in reply. It might indeed have been nice if the
> > publication DDL itself had prevented the cases where a partition and
> > its ancestor are added to a publication, though as Hou-san mentioned,
> > partition ATTACHes make that a bit tricky to enforce at all times,
> > though of course not impossible. Maybe it's okay to just de-duplicate
> > pg_publication_tables output as the patch does, even though it may
> > appear to be a band-aid solution if we one considers Alvaro's point
> > about consistency.
>
> True, I think even if we consider that idea it will be a much bigger
> change, and also as it will be a behavioral change so we might want to
> keep it just for HEAD and some of these fixes need to be backpatched.
> Having said that, if you or someone want to pursue that idea and come
> up with a better solution than what we have currently it is certainly
> welcome.
Okay, I did write a PoC patch this morning after sending out my
earlier email. I polished it a bit, which is attached.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com