On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 4:16 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-11-22 07:28, Amit Langote wrote: > > >> What happens when you add a leaf table directly to a publication? Is it > >> replicated under its own identity or under its ancestor partitioned > >> table? (What if both the leaf table and a partitioned table are > >> publication members?) > > > > If both a leaf partition and an ancestor belong to the same > > publication, then leaf partition changes are replicated using the > > ancestor's schema. For a leaf partition to be replicated using its > > own schema it must be published via a separate publication that > > doesn't contain the ancestor. At least that's what the current patch > > does. > > Hmm, that seems confusing. This would mean that if you add a > partitioned table to a publication that already contains leaf tables, > the publication behavior of the leaf tables would change. So again, I > think this alternative behavior of publishing partitions under the name > of their root table should be an explicit option on a publication, and > then it should be ensured somehow that individual partitions are not > added to the publication in confusing ways. >
Yeah, it can probably detect and throw an error for such cases. > So, it's up to you which aspect of this you want to tackle, but I > thought your original goal of being able to add partitioned tables to > publications and have that implicitly expand to all member partitions on > the publication side seemed quite useful, self-contained, and > uncontroversial. > +1. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
