On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:44 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 1:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As Euler mentioned earlier, I think it's a decision not to replicate
> > > generated columns because we don't know the target table on the
> > > subscriber has the same expression and there could be locale issues
> > > even if it looks the same. I can see that a benefit of this proposal
> > > would be to save cost to compute generated column values if the user
> > > wants the target table on the subscriber to have exactly the same data
> > > as the publisher's one. Are there other benefits or use cases?
> > >
> >
> > The cost is one but the other is the user may not want the data to be
> > different based on volatile functions like timeofday()
>
> Shouldn't the generation expression be immutable?
>
> > or the table on
> > subscriber won't have the column marked as generated.
>
> Yeah, it would be another use case.
>
While speaking with one of the decoding output plugin users, I learned
that this feature will be useful when replicating data to a
non-postgres database using the plugin output, especially when the
other database doesn't have a generated column concept.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
