Re: Support logical replication of DDLs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
Date
Msg-id ZIjmGhPWdoJUfjjE@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support logical replication of DDLs  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support logical replication of DDLs  (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 06:49:42PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We have to choose one of the approaches between 0001 and 0008. I feel
> we don't need an intermediate ObjTree representation as that adds
> overhead and an additional layer which is not required. As mentioned
> in my previous email I think as a first step we should merge 0001 and
> 0008 and avoid having an additional ObjTree layer unless you or others
> feel we need it. I think that will reduce the overall patch size and
> help us to focus on one of the approaches.

Similar impression here.  I found ObjTree actually confusing compared
to the JSON blobs generated.

> Surely, as suggested by
> you, we should also evaluate if we can generate this code for the
> various command types.

Thanks.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Document that server will start even if it's unable to open some TCP/IP ports
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ERROR: wrong varnullingrels (b 3) (expected (b)) for Var 2/1