Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 14:30:59 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Sergey Tatarintsev <s.tatarintsev@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Restrict publishing of partitioned table with a foreign table as
 partition
Message-ID: <202504071230.2dw72naygjvf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c64352fa-9a30-4e0a-853a-a6b5b6d07f4e@postgrespro.ru>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202504071230.2dw72naygjvf%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Apr-07, Sergey Tatarintsev wrote:

> I think this is a wrong assumption:
> 
> ScanKeyInit(&key[keycount++], Anum_pg_class_relispartition,
> BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_BOOLEQ, BoolGetDatum(false));
> 
> In this case sch5.part1 is partitioned table, but it also partition of table
> in different schema

Yeah, this looks ill-considered.

After looking at this code some more, I'm withdrawing myself from here.
(I don't mean just this patch in particular, I mean the logical
replication code as a whole.)

Thanks,

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
 en duras y empinadas sillas    / desprovistas, por cierto
 de blandos atenuantes"                          (Patricio Vogel)