On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2022-Apr-30, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 2:02 AM Tomas Vondra > > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > That seems to deal with a circular replication, i.e. two logical > > > replication links - a bit like a multi-master. Not sure how is that > > > related to the issue we're discussing here? > > > > It is not directly related to what we are discussing here but I was > > trying to emphasize the point that users need to define the logical > > replication via pub/sub sanely otherwise they might see some weird > > behaviors like that. > > I agree with that. > > My proposal is that if users want to define multiple publications, and > their definitions conflict in a way that would behave ridiculously (== > bound to cause data inconsistencies eventually), an error should be > thrown. Maybe we will not be able to catch all bogus cases, but we can > be prepared for the most obvious ones, and patch later when we find > others. >
I agree with throwing errors for obvious/known bogus cases but do we want to throw errors or restrict the combining of column lists when row filters are present in all cases? See some examples [1 ] where it may be valid to combine them. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1K%2BPkkC6_FDemGMC_i%2BAakx%2B3%3DQG-g4We3BdCK7dK_bgA%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
