Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
>>
>> I have handled the above scenario(drop schema should automatically
>> remove the schema entry from publication schema relation) & addition
>> of tests in the new v2 patch attached.
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Please see some initial comments:
>
> 1. I think there should be more tests to show that the schema data is actually replicated
> to the subscriber. Currently, I am not seeing the data being replicated when I use FOR SCHEMA.
>
I will fix this issue and include more tests in my next version of the patch.
> 2. How does replication behave when a table is added or removed from a subscribed schema
> using ALTER TABLE SET SCHEMA?
>
I would like to keep the behavior similar to the table behavior. I
will post more details for this along with my next version of the
patch.
> 3. Can we have a default schema like a public or current schema that gets replicated in case the user didn't
> specify one, this can be handy to replicate current schema tables.
>
It looks like a good use case, I will check on the feasibility of this
and try to implement this.
> 4. + The fourth, fifth and sixth variants change which schemas are part of the
> + publication. The <literal>SET TABLE</literal> clause will replace the list
> + of schemas in the publication with the specified one. The <literal>ADD
>
> There is a typo above s/SET TABLE/SET SCHEMA
I will fix this in the next version of the patch.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
