Re: [HACKERS] Shouldn't duplicate addition to publication be a no-op?

On 2017/04/17 14:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> By the way, Petr said in the other thread that it could be made a no-op
>> (presumably without requiring IF NOT EXISTS) on the grounds that
>> membership of table in publication is "soft object" or "property" rather
>> than real object.
> 
> I don't find that argument terribly convincing.
> 
> The nearest parallel that we have for this is probably:
> 
> ALTER EXTENSION name ADD member_object;
> ALTER EXTENSION name DROP member_object;
> 
> I would guess this ought to work similarly.

Hmm, it does make sense to mock this behavior.

create extension dummy;
create table foo ();
alter extension dummy add table foo;
alter extension dummy add table foo;
ERROR:  table foo is already a member of extension "dummy"

Thanks,
Amit