pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:17:12 -0700
Message-ID: <596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmoaf=vvTZug0nT8ihti1jvLXnvSaRj1osLjVjmKwQTjfDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2729c9e2-9aac-8cda-f2f4-34f2bcc18f4e@enterprisedb.com>
	<CAA4eK1KDX2S1bct1-y_dXpV3VpYU5CotU9MN57uzPOSWEararQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<37271.1662704091@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAA4eK1JPPQ1j=m15QCvU2Yfdq70yVhZejpvPi27GaVD4urWAgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZOE9uDzjiLBi_8yqVcqrfMYfvp02DLF1fFzOR9Zp4txg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OS0PR01MB5716FA725E51EF7F130E59AC94439@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<CA+Tgmoaf=vvTZug0nT8ihti1jvLXnvSaRj1osLjVjmKwQTjfDg@mail.gmail.com>



> On Sep 9, 2022, at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Things might be clearer if we'd made the syntax "ALTER PUBLICATION p1
> { ADD | DROP } { TABLE | SCHEMA } name". I don't understand why we
> used this ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA language.

The conversation, as I recall, was that "ADD SCHEMA foo" would only mean all tables in foo, until publication of other object types became supported, at which point "ADD SCHEMA foo" would suddenly mean more than it did before.  People might find that surprising, so the "ALL TABLES IN" was intended to future-proof against surprising behavioral changes.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company








view thread (46+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com>
Permalink:  ../596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
  In-Reply-To: <596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox