Exclude the default tenant table if it exists in the procedure

[zakky21]

We are using a postgreSQL procedure.
And we have a problem that when we clone a tenant, the schema name of the default tenant table is also changed.

My solution

Added pg_exclude_clone_tables parameter. (I'm not sure about the name. Change it if you need to.)
When the pg_exclude_clone_tables parameter is true, the tables specified in excluded_models are excluded from the replacements done by patch_search_path.

As a side effect, exclude tables specified in excluded_models from the clone target because the SQL output by pg_dump malfunctions if there is a create statement for the table.

Examples

Setting

apartment.rb

Apartment.configure do |config|
  config.excluded_models = ['Company']
  config.use_schemas = true
  config.use_sql = true
end

migration

def up
  ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute <<-PROCEDURE
    CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_function() RETURNS INTEGER AS $function$
    DECLARE
      r1 INTEGER;
      r2 INTEGER;
    BEGIN
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r1 FROM public.companies;  -- we expected to stay public schema
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r2 FROM public.users;
      RETURN r1 + r2;
    END;
    $function$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
  PROCEDURE
end

Then create 'test' schema

Actual

    CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_function() RETURNS INTEGER AS $function$
    DECLARE
      r1 INTEGER;
      r2 INTEGER;
    BEGIN
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r1 FROM test.companies;  -- we expected to stay public schema
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r2 FROM test.users;
      RETURN r1 + r2;
    END;
    $function$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

Expect

    CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_function() RETURNS INTEGER AS $function$
    DECLARE
      r1 INTEGER;
      r2 INTEGER;
    BEGIN
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r1 FROM public.companies;  -- we expected to stay public schema
      SELECT COUNT(*) INTO r2 FROM test.users;
      RETURN r1 + r2;
    END;
    $function$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

[mnovelo]

@zakky21 I'm a new maintainer on this gem. Do you still want this to be considered?

[zakky21]

@mnovelo
Thank you for your response.

Please consider this.
Because we are currently handled by a monkey patch, and I would like to see it supported on the gem side.