Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:36:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

Apparently, you can't add a table to a publication if its schema is 
already part of the publication (and vice versa), e.g.,

=# alter publication p1 add table s1.t1;
ERROR:  22023: cannot add relation "s1.t1" to publication
DETAIL:  Table's schema "s1" is already part of the publication or part 
of the specified schema list.

Is there a reason for this?  It looks a bit like a misfeature to me.  It 
constrains how you can move your tables around between schemas, based on 
how somewhere else a publication has been constructed.

It seems to me that it shouldn't be difficult to handle the case that a 
table is part of the publication via two different routes.  (We must 
already handle that since a subscription can use more than one publication.)