Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_subscription_ddl() function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vaibhav Dalvi
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_subscription_ddl() function
Date
Msg-id CA+vB=AGAxwPMPpppk46bRm0T+3CrLPKWkehMVtfSYMef+Rndnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_subscription_ddl() function  (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_subscription_ddl() function
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for the explanation. 

I tried to get rid of String usage in 0001 patch.
Prepared 0002 patch for actual implementation of the
function p_get_subscription_ddl().

Please find attached patches.

Regards,
Vaibhav

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 5:41 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
On 2025-Nov-07, Vaibhav Dalvi wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:18 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>
> > Hello Vaibhav,
> >
> > I wonder why is Subscription->publications a list of String rather than
> > a list of C strings.  That's something you'd see in a Node structure,
> > but Subscription is not a node, so this seems wasteful and pointless.
> >
>
> I looked more into this and came to know that we can't make
> Subscription->publications a list of C strings because input publications
> list is also in the list of String from the parser:
>
> CreateSubscriptionStmt:
> CREATE SUBSCRIPTION name CONNECTION Sconst PUBLICATION name_list
> opt_definition
> {
> CreateSubscriptionStmt *n =
> makeNode(CreateSubscriptionStmt);
> n->subname = $3;
> n->conninfo = $5;
> n->publication = $7;
> n->options = $8;
> $$ = (Node *) n;
> };

But this is a CreateSubscriptionStmt (which is indeed a Node), not a
Subscription (which isn't).  Different thing.

--
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not
crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by
the Conservation of Cruft Principle."  (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6)
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication of sequences
Next
From: Chao Li
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication of sequences