MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAB-JLwbBFNuASyEnZWP0Tck9uNkthBZqi6WoXNevUT6+mV8XmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoA6i2ui8FMZeuU_KxX4t-fM8G==zTW2Dp6-goujttrpew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-JLwZpp=7c9_r0beWWJxRh2BS_2Vvth8UDv7H57DBeaqggVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDT3sL2COprsRumM9zEpL1Bk5VWboK4V2mRnjGua8xfeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDQM62GOtaTzD_CVMSsFhv6o9c0Au1dSM1QuxeKFkWAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoCz7HjEr3oeb=haK31YHxHZLcvD_wx_a-+xLPKywq++3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB16907733B75A99117F013AFCA947FA@TY4PR01MB16907.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAD21AoA9YgiY1rVKMPZwB00WU_G4UfzoawY=7hyd7hpvBPcK6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KoSi60dtakJzn0MxNnHF1Yf4indSAffTjJxQG_31jsgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoB4B3MOxJ7-v9YLjV5fTOtaLRUhX3jN3kqhEi7D7-uY4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0c28fbd1-3320-4e9b-815c-6d62753aa063@wi3ck.info>
 <CAD21AoCmHpKrNg9D3mcOA973CZ5N_dBLxb8pERpSxEeRLSQxpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAEVyxwn_bMWHvcU-Gcz3aUVjAtMbdgfoJ8MZNiLLEh0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1Jkouj=w+PHzMB6v890ES3QOLf=cUTvZmGFr-WMQW2OnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoB4_n7+s=uM9apX1JVtvGvgM8ismAx_uMxvDmUXfQULsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBJcxRcaWQot302diaxoDcsnezRhnZa7p8UrPh5AGNeHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+ATysKLptbK+x8ygB7OAa=LHw3XTqMxKjVMsTRfdbRzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1+ATysKLptbK+x8ygB7OAa=LHw3XTqMxKjVMsTRfdbRzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:51:14 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAD21AoCLodVegaB=HDfxFMe8s9TMUxj+okznt6yjizN+5TVOfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoCLodVegaB%3DHDfxFMe8s9TMUxj%2Bokznt6yjizN%2B5TVOfA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 3:44=E2=80=AFAM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:37=E2=80=AFAM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I figured out that the join with pg_publication works as a filter;
> > non-existence publication names are not passed to the function. If we
> > pass the list of publication names to the new function signature,
> > while we can simplify the patch and avoid a join, we would change the
> > existing function behavior so that it ignores non-existence
> > publications.
> >
> > I've attached the updated patch. The 0001 patch just incorporated the
> > review comments so far, and the 0002 patch is a draft change for the
> > above idea. Since pg_get_publication_tables(VARIADIC text) is not a
> > documented function, I think we can accept small behavior changes. So
> > I'm going to go with this direction.
> >
>
> What behaviour change are you referring to? In general, the direction
> appears right to me.

When passing a non-existent publication name, the current behavior
raises an error while the new behavior does nothing (i.e., the
difference is calling GetPublicationByName() with missing_ok =3D true or
false).

Regards,

--=20
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com