Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 10:41:04 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Message-ID: <202109041441.gyqpsvi44fff@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+dnB_q2R8EGMaYUZLc1biwgzKnvxe76RbNdxO7UPrLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109041441.gyqpsvi44fff%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Sep-04, Amit Kapila wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-Sep-02, Rahila Syed wrote:
> >
> > > After thinking about this, I think it is best to remove the entire table
> > > from publication,
> > > if a column specified in the column filter is dropped from the table.
> >
> > Hmm, I think it would be cleanest to give responsibility to the user: if
> > the column to be dropped is in the filter, then raise an error, aborting
> > the drop.
> 
> Do you think that will make sense if the user used Cascade (Alter
> Table ... Drop Column ... Cascade)?

... ugh.  Since CASCADE is already defined to be a potentially-data-loss
operation, then that may be acceptable behavior.  For sure the default
RESTRICT behavior shouldn't do it, though.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/