On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> I understand that this is a minimal fix, and for that it seems OK, but I
> think the surrounding style is rather baroque. This code can be made
> simpler. Here's my take on it.
>
We don't have a lock on the relation, so if it gets dropped
concurrently, it won't behave sanely. For example, get_rel_name() will
return NULL which seems incorrect to me.
> I think it's also faster: we avoid
> looking up pg_publication_rel entries for rels that aren't partitioned
> tables.
>
I am not sure about this as well because you will instead do a RELOID
cache lookup even when there is no row filter or column list.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
