On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Petr Jelinek
<petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Ok, Let me be clear, I actually happen to agree with your proposal. The
> reason I am moaning is that I always seem to find myself doing tons of
> mechanical work to rewrite some cosmetic aspect of some patch based on
> which committer is paying attention in a specific week. So while I am
> for doing exactly what you proposed, I'd like to see couple of +1s first
> (Peter?) since I don't want to rewrite it to something different again
> and it's also long past freeze.
So, Tom Lane and Thom Brown and Josh Drake all seemed generally in
favor of cleaning this up. Perhaps they could opine on this
particular proposal.
> To repeat the proposal:
> - change the WITH (...) clauses in subscription/publication commands to:
> (create_slot true/false, connect true/false, slot_name 'something',
> copy_data true/false, etc)
>
> - change the NOREFRESH to NO REFRESH in ALTER SUBSCRIPTION name SET
> PUBLICATION (btw I originally had SKIP REFRESH there but changed it to
> NOREFRESH for consistency with the other NO* stuff, wonder if SKIP would
> sound more english).
>
> - change the (publish insert/nopublish insert/publish update/nopublish
> update), etc options to (publish 'update,insert').
>
> And one question, if we are not using the definitions (key = value)
> should we keep the WITH keyword in the syntax, would it be confusing?
No opinion on that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
