On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:18 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:42 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Reading Alvaro's email at the top again gave me a pause to reconsider > > > > what I had said in reply. It might indeed have been nice if the > > > > publication DDL itself had prevented the cases where a partition and > > > > its ancestor are added to a publication, though as Hou-san mentioned, > > > > partition ATTACHes make that a bit tricky to enforce at all times, > > > > though of course not impossible. Maybe it's okay to just de-duplicate > > > > pg_publication_tables output as the patch does, even though it may > > > > appear to be a band-aid solution if we one considers Alvaro's point > > > > about consistency. > > > > > > True, I think even if we consider that idea it will be a much bigger > > > change, and also as it will be a behavioral change so we might want to > > > keep it just for HEAD and some of these fixes need to be backpatched. > > > Having said that, if you or someone want to pursue that idea and come > > > up with a better solution than what we have currently it is certainly > > > welcome. > > > > Okay, I did write a PoC patch this morning after sending out my > > earlier email. I polished it a bit, which is attached. > > I see multiple problems with this patch and idea.
Thanks for looking at it. Yeah, I have not looked very closely at ALL TABLES [IN SCHEMA], though only because I suspected that those cases deal with partitioning in such a way that the partition duplication issue doesn't arise. That is, only the FOR TABLE list_of_tables and ADD TABLE syntax allow for the duplication issue to occur.
Another thing I forgot to mention is that the patch passes check-world. Perhaps we don’t have enough tests that would’ve exposed any problems with the patch’s approach.