On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 7:23 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Monday, September 14, 2026 12:29 AM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > The attached patches have the changes for the same. > > v1-0001-Distinguish-publication-exclusions-in-object-addr.patch is the same > > Fujii Masao-san's patch from [2]. The comment fixes are present in > > v1-0002-Review-comment-fixes.patch which is a top-up patch on top of Fujii > > Masao-san's patch. > > Thanks for sharing the patches. > > I have one question for 0001: > > The changes in pg_get_object_address() look a bit hacky to me. Instead of > hard-coding a string comparison and adding a special branch to handle the > excluded publication relation, wouldn't it be more standard to introduce a new > object type, such as OBJECT_PUBLICATION_EXCLUDED_REL?
+1. pg_get_object_address() copies a part of get_object_address() in 'if' branch while 'else' branch still relies on get_object_address(). If in future concerned part of get_object_address() changes, the similar change will be needed in 'if-branch', which an easily be missed. > I think that would make > the code more elegant, and we could pass the object type directly to > get_object_address_publication_rel() instead of using a Boolean flag. That > said, are > there any reasons we cannot add a new object type? > > Best Regards, > Zhijie Hou
