On 3/21/22 12:28, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 8:13 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, thanks for reminding me - it's hard to keep track of all the issues
>> in threads as long as this one.
>>
>> BTW do you have any opinion on the SET COLUMNS syntax? Peter Smith
>> proposed to get rid of it in [1] but I'm not sure that's a good idea.
>> Because if we ditch it, then removing the column list would look like this:
>>
>> ALTER PUBLICATION pub ALTER TABLE tab;
>>
>> And if we happen to add other per-table options, this would become
>> pretty ambiguous.
>>
>> Actually, do we even want to allow resetting column lists like this? We
>> don't allow this for row filters, so if you want to change a row filter
>> you have to re-add the table, right?
>>
>
> We can use syntax like: "alter publication pub1 set table t1 where (c2
>> 10);" to reset the existing row filter. It seems similar thing works
> for column list as well ("alter publication pub1 set table t1 (c2)
> where (c2 > 10)"). If I am not missing anything, I don't think we need
> additional Alter Table syntax.
>
>> So maybe we should just ditch ALTER
>> TABLE entirely.
>>
>
> Yeah, I agree especially if my above understanding is correct.
>
I think there's a gotcha that
ALTER PUBLICATION pub SET TABLE t ...
also removes all other relations from the publication, and it removes
and re-adds the table anyway. So I'm not sure what's the advantage?
Anyway, I don't see why we would need such ALTER TABLE only for column
filters and not for row filters - either we need to allow this for both
options or none of them.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company