On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 8:11 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Sep-04, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-Sep-02, Rahila Syed wrote: > > > > > > > After thinking about this, I think it is best to remove the entire table > > > > from publication, > > > > if a column specified in the column filter is dropped from the table. > > > > > > Hmm, I think it would be cleanest to give responsibility to the user: if > > > the column to be dropped is in the filter, then raise an error, aborting > > > the drop. > > > > Do you think that will make sense if the user used Cascade (Alter > > Table ... Drop Column ... Cascade)? > > ... ugh. Since CASCADE is already defined to be a potentially-data-loss > operation, then that may be acceptable behavior. For sure the default > RESTRICT behavior shouldn't do it, though. >
That makes sense to me.
However, the default (RESTRICT) behaviour of DROP TABLE allows removing the table from the publication. I have implemented the removal of table from publication on drop column (RESTRICT) on the same lines.
Although it does make sense to not allow dropping tables from publication, in case of RESTRICT. It makes me wonder how DROP TABLE (RESTRICT) allows cascading the drop table to publication.
Did you give any thoughts to my earlier suggestion related to syntax [1]?
