Thanks Rahila for your comments. Please find my thoughts below: On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:27 PM Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vignesh, > >> >> I have handled the above scenario(drop schema should automatically >> remove the schema entry from publication schema relation) & addition >> of tests in the new v2 patch attached. >> Thoughts? > > > Please see some initial comments: > > 1. I think there should be more tests to show that the schema data is > actually replicated > to the subscriber. Currently, I am not seeing the data being replicated when > I use FOR SCHEMA. > I will fix this issue and include more tests in my next version of the patch.
> 2. How does replication behave when a table is added or removed from a > subscribed schema > using ALTER TABLE SET SCHEMA? > I would like to keep the behavior similar to the table behavior. I will post more details for this along with my next version of the patch. > 3. Can we have a default schema like a public or current schema that gets > replicated in case the user didn't > specify one, this can be handy to replicate current schema tables. > It looks like a good use case, I will check on the feasibility of this and try to implement this. > 4. + The fourth, fifth and sixth variants change which schemas are part of > the > + publication. The <literal>SET TABLE</literal> clause will replace the > list > + of schemas in the publication with the specified one. The <literal>ADD > > There is a typo above s/SET TABLE/SET SCHEMA I will fix this in the next version of the patch. Regards, Vignesh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
