Re: Functions 'is_publishable_class' and 'is_publishable_relation' should stay together.
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Functions 'is_publishable_class' and 'is_publishable_relation' should stay together. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1Lg=9_sJgnD6GvoPfSe_+fk48Vz6dEUYnJHXkh8xxkYqg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Functions 'is_publishable_class' and 'is_publishable_relation' should stay together. ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 6:59 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, July 30, 2022 7:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, I checked the commit and the functions I was talking about > > > > look OK now. However, looking again, pg_relation_is_publishable is > > > > in the wrong place (should be right below is_publishable_relaton), > > > > and I wonder why aren't get_publication_oid and get_publication_name in > > lsyscache.c. > > > > > > > > > > Right, both these suggestions make sense to me. Similarly, I think > > > functions get_subscription_name and get_subscription_oid should also > > > be moved to lsyscache.c. > > > > > > > Attached, find a patch to address the above comments. > > > > Note that (a) I didn't change the comment atop pg_relation_is_publishable to > > refer to the actual function name instead of 'above' as it seems it can be an SQL > > variant for both the above functions. (b) didn't need to include pg_publication.h > > in lsyscache.c even after moving code to that file as the code is compiled even > > without that. > > The patch LGTM. I also ran the headerscheck and didn't find any problem. > Thanks, I have pushed the patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: