On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > I understand that this is a minimal fix, and for that it seems OK, but I > think the surrounding style is rather baroque. This code can be made > simpler. Here's my take on it. >
We don't have a lock on the relation, so if it gets dropped concurrently, it won't behave sanely. For example, get_rel_name() will return NULL which seems incorrect to me. > I think it's also faster: we avoid > looking up pg_publication_rel entries for rels that aren't partitioned > tables. > I am not sure about this as well because you will instead do a RELOID cache lookup even when there is no row filter or column list. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
