On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> I wonder if trying to add a relation to a publication that it is already a >> part should be considered a no-op, instead of causing an error (which >> happens in the ALTER PUBLICATION ADD TABLES case). > > On what grounds? > > The equivalent case for inheritance is an error: > > regression=# create table foo (a int); > CREATE TABLE > regression=# create table bar () inherits (foo); > CREATE TABLE > regression=# alter table bar inherit foo; > ERROR: relation "foo" would be inherited from more than once
Hmm, yes. Making it a no-op might be surprising to some. > (Your example purporting to show the contrary contains a typo.) Oops, I had meant: alter publication mypub add table foo; > If there's a reason why this case should act differently from that > precedent, you haven't shown it. Maybe we won't solve it by doing what I proposed, but if there is a database like this: create table foo (a int); create table bar () inherits(foo); create publication mypub for table foo; Dumping and restoring it into another database is not without errors, because of the order in which things are dumped: $ createdb test $ pg_dump -s | psql -e test <snip> CREATE PUBLICATION mypub WITH (PUBLISH INSERT, PUBLISH UPDATE, PUBLISH DELETE); ALTER PUBLICATION mypub ADD TABLE bar; ALTER PUBLICATION mypub ADD TABLE foo; ERROR: relation "bar" is already member of publication "mypub" But perhaps that's a pg_dump issue, not this. I haven't closely looked. Or perhaps something that will be resolved in the nearby "Logical replication and inheritance" thread. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
