Re: Added schema level support for publication.

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 3:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:56 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:10 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 5)
> > > +                       if (list_length(pubobj->name) == 1 &&
> > > +                               (strcmp(relname, "CURRENT_SCHEMA") == 0))
> > > +                               ereport(ERROR,
> > > +                                               errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > > +                                               errmsg("invalid relation name at or near"),
> > > +                                               parser_errposition(pstate, pubobj->location));
> > >
> > > Maybe we don't need this check, because it will report an error in
> > > OpenTableList() anyway, "relation "CURRENT_SCHEMA" does not exist" , and that
> > > message seems readable to me.
> >
> > Allowing CURRENT_SCHEMA is required to support current schema for
> > schema publications, currently I'm allowing this syntax during parsing
> > and this error is thrown for relations later, this is done to keep the
> > similar error as earlier before this feature support. I felt we can
> > keep it like this to maintain the similar error. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I find this check quite ad-hoc in the code and I am not sure if we
> need to be consistent for the exact message in this case. So, I think
> it is better to remove it.

Modified

> > > About  0003
> > > 7)
> > > The v22-0003 seems simple and can remove lots of code in patch v22-0001, so
> > > maybe we can merge 0001 and 0003 into one patch ?
> >
> > I agree that the code becomes simpler, it reduces a lot of code. I had
> > kept it like that as the testing effort might be more and also I was
> > waiting if there was no objection for that syntax from anyone else. I
> > will wait for a few more reviews and merge it to 0001 if there are no
> > objections.
> >
>
> +1 to merge the patch as suggested by Hou-San.

Modified

This is handled as part of v25 patch attached at [1]

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2SytXy2TDnzzYkXWKgNp74ssPBXrkMXEyac1qVYSRkbw%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Vignesh