Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Subject: Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Tgmoaf=vvTZug0nT8ihti1jvLXnvSaRj1osLjVjmKwQTjfDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:17:12 -0700
Cc: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.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>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On Sep 9, 2022, at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.

=E2=80=94
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company