Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP
Date
Msg-id cedfd465-d7ae-503e-a9aa-b02b457e1f3d@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Logical Replication WIP  (Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/3/17 5:23 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> I got this remark about IsCatalogClass() from Andres offline as well,
> but it's not true, it only checks for FirstNormalObjectId for objects in
> pg_catalog and toast schemas, not anywhere else.

I see your statement is correct, but I'm not sure the overall behavior
is sensible.  Either we consider the information_schema tables to be
catalog tables, and then IsCatalogClass() should be changed, or we
consider then non-catalog tables, and then we should let them be in
publications.  I don't think having a third category of
sometimes-catalog tables is desirable.

Currently, they clearly behave like non-catalog tables, since you can
just drop and recreate them freely, so I would choose the second option.It might be worth changing that, but it doesn't
haveto be the job of
 
this patch set.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNDO and in-place update
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump / copy bugs with "big lines" ?