On 6/9/17 11:45, Tom Lane wrote: > What we've done in many comparable situations is to allow a > catalog-probing function to return NULL instead of failing > when handed an OID or other identifier that it can't locate. > Here it seems like pg_get_publication_tables() needs to use > missing_ok = TRUE and then return zero rows for a null result.
Why is it that dropping a publication in another session makes our local view of things change in middle of a single SQL statement? Is there something we can change to address that? > BTW, isn't the above command a hugely inefficient way of finding > the publications for the target rel? Unless you've got a rather > small number of rather restricted publications, seems like it's > going to take a long time. Maybe we don't care too much about > manual invocations of \d+, but I bet somebody will carp if there's > not a better way to find this out. Maybe a better answer is to > define a more suitable function pg_publications_for_table(relid) > and let it have the no-error-for-bad-OID behavior. That would possibly be better (the current function was written for a different use case), but it could have the same concurrency problem as above. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
