You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There is currently no way to add the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause option. For creating new tables with the option I'm currently using the AsCustom column type option for it, but it requires including the column type, identity property, and not for replication clause as the custom type.
Describe the solution you'd like
Add a Sql Server extension to allow adding the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause.
I wonder if we should abstract it into a general Publication syntax root. My sense is that since this hasn't really been requested before, most people leave it to (SQL Server or Postgres) DBAs to set up replication and thus likely don't manage it from C#. Postgres also doesn't allow you to micro-manage replication the way SQL Server does. A table is either in a publication or it's not.
I would therefore lean towards just using ISupportAdditionalFeatures to add metadata into the column expression.
Postgres 15 has support for specific column publication but it is controlled at the publication level, not the column level. Indicates that different systems have different complexity for this feature.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
There is currently no way to add the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause option. For creating new tables with the option I'm currently using the
AsCustom
column type option for it, but it requires including the column type, identity property, and not for replication clause as the custom type.Describe the solution you'd like
Add a Sql Server extension to allow adding the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause.
Additional context
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create-table-transact-sql?view=sql-server-ver15
Is this a feature you'd like to submit a PR for?
Possibly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: