On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:08 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:04 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 11:10, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 8:22 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- a/src/include/catalog/pg_subscription.h > > > +++ b/src/include/catalog/pg_subscription.h > > > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ typedef struct Subscription > > > * skipped */ > > > char *name; /* Name of the subscription */ > > > Oid owner; /* Oid of the subscription owner */ > > > + bool ownersuperuser; /* Is the subscription owner a superuser? */ > > > bool enabled; /* Indicates if the subscription is enabled */ > > > bool binary; /* Indicates if the subscription wants data in > > > * binary format */ > > > > > > We normally don't change the exposed structure in back branches as > > > that poses a risk of breaking extensions. In this case, if we want, we > > > can try to squeeze some padding space or we even can fix it without > > > introducing a new member. OTOH, it is already debatable whether to fix > > > it in back branches, so we can even commit this patch just in HEAD. > > > > I too feel we can commit this patch only in HEAD. > > > > Fair enough. I'll wait till early next week (say till Monday EOD) to > see if anyone thinks otherwise and push this patch to HEAD after some > more testing and review. >
Pushed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
