Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobyyOuGRHfgwVrdJvbVkVYJC9Pm6NewkhSVvnvFXdfbQQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op?  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> By the way, Petr said in the other thread that it could be made a no-op
> (presumably without requiring IF NOT EXISTS) on the grounds that
> membership of table in publication is "soft object" or "property" rather
> than real object.

I don't find that argument terribly convincing.

The nearest parallel that we have for this is probably:

ALTER EXTENSION name ADD member_object;
ALTER EXTENSION name DROP member_object;

I would guess this ought to work similarly.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn()
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes