On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:01 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > > > > > On 7 Sep 2021, at 13:36, Peter Eisentraut > > > <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 12.08.21 04:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:42 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 11 Aug 2021, at 09:57, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Additionally, refresh options as described in > > >>>> <replaceable>refresh_option</replaceable> of > > >>>> <literal>REFRESH PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified, > > >>>> except in the case of <literal>DROP PUBLICATION</literal>. > > >>> > > >>> Since this paragraph is under the literal option “refresh”, which takes > > >>> a > > >>> value, I still find your original patch to be the clearest. > > >> Yeah, I prefer my original patch over this idea. On the other hand, I > > >> can see the point of review comment on it that Amit pointed out[1]. > > > > > > How about this: > > > > > > - Additionally, refresh options as described > > > - under <literal>REFRESH PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified. > > > + Additionally, the options described under <literal>REFRESH > > > + PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified, to control the implicit > > > refresh > > > + operation. > > > > LGTM. > > +1 > > Attached the patch. >
LGTM as well. Peter E., Daniel, does any one of you is intending to push this? If not, I can take care of this. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
