Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYXg7McY33+jbWmG=rS-HNUur0S6W8Q8kVNFf7epFimVA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Something is rotten in publication drop  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> If there are no new insights, I plan to proceed with the attached patch
>> tomorrow.  This leaves the existing view and function alone, adds
>> pg_relation_is_publishable() and uses that in psql.
>
> Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder
> why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef?
> If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad.
> There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set.

Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Typo in insert.sgml
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Typo in insert.sgml