David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On the whole, I think the API of these functions could be improved as
> it's made the fix for this bug more convoluted than it needs to be.
+1
> I'm on the fence if this should be done as part of this bug fix. The
> reason I think it might is that you're changing
> publication_translate_columns() to be non-static, and if the above API
> change gets done later, that's then changing the API of an existing
> external function. The reason against is that it's more risky to do in
> the back branches as it's changing more code. What do others think?
If we are going to export a formerly-static function, we should make
its API as clean as we can. I doubt that that adds meaningful risk,
and it avoids people possibly getting bit by cross-branch differences.
> Is it worth adding an ALTER PUBLICATION test with a duplicate column too?
Probably, just to prove that the non-duplicative representation does
what we want.
regards, tom lane
