MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAAD30UKg8rXeGM8Oy_MAmxKBL_K5DiHXdeNF=hUefcu1C_6VfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221006171601.6um4ey5idm4h62vf@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAAD30UJh+LcUND+zg_A5dbQ_Bi=m_n7qUfKrOwAx2v4jBKWvKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAD30UJh+LcUND+zg_A5dbQ_Bi=m_n7qUfKrOwAx2v4jBKWvKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:01:31 +1100
Message-ID: 
 <CAFPTHDbVujj6C3TdMCmoBXovpc4=5Ow3i5M1_HNhmnqdiA5qSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Support logical replication of DDLs
To: Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
	"houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	rajesh singarapu <rajesh.rs0541@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFPTHDbVujj6C3TdMCmoBXovpc4%3D5Ow3i5M1_HNhmnqdiA5qSA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 8:30 AM Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some tweaking is made in deparse_drop_command in order to make DROP
> > > TRANSFORM deparsing work. This is because the objidentity captured in
> > > currentEventTriggerState->SQLDropList contains the keyword 'on', for
> > > example "for typename on language lang", but the keyword 'on' is not
> > > needed in the current DROP TRANSFORM syntax. So we need to remove the
> > > 'on' keyword in objidentity. I'm not sure if this is the best way to
> > > handle it, maybe we can consider directly modifying what's captured in
> > > currentEventTriggerState->SQLDropList
> > > so we don't have the "on" keyword to begin with?
> >
> > The exact output format for identity is not set in stone; we should only
> > set it in stone once we have an actual working case for them.  This is
> > the first such use, so it seems OK to make minor modifications (such as
> > removing an undesirable ON) if it's a reasonable change and allows
> > consumer code to be more easily written.
>
> > So, +1 to dropping ON here.  However, if there are further strings that
> > need to be modified, let's see what they are.
>
> Thanks for confirming. Attaching the new patch set that removes the
> undesirable ON from getObjectIdentityParts() for TRANSFORM.
>
Thanks for the new patch-set.
Could you add the changes to patch 1 and patch 2, rather than adding a
new patch?
Otherwise, we'll have a separate patch for each command and it will
take double work to keep it updated
for each new command added.

thanks,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia