Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYXg7McY33+jbWmG=rS-HNUur0S6W8Q8kVNFf7epFimVA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> If there are no new insights, I plan to proceed with the attached patch >> tomorrow. This leaves the existing view and function alone, adds >> pg_relation_is_publishable() and uses that in psql. > > Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder > why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef? > If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad. > There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set. Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: