On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 8:11 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Sep-04, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021-Sep-02, Rahila Syed wrote:
> > >
> > > > After thinking about this, I think it is best to remove the entire table
> > > > from publication,
> > > > if a column specified in the column filter is dropped from the table.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think it would be cleanest to give responsibility to the user: if
> > > the column to be dropped is in the filter, then raise an error, aborting
> > > the drop.
> >
> > Do you think that will make sense if the user used Cascade (Alter
> > Table ... Drop Column ... Cascade)?
>
> ... ugh. Since CASCADE is already defined to be a potentially-data-loss
> operation, then that may be acceptable behavior. For sure the default
> RESTRICT behavior shouldn't do it, though.
>
That makes sense to me.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.