Message-ID: <f8e76b08-833e-8e9a-4299-94470d501aa7@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:11:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Subject: Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences
Content-Language: en-US
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <d045f3c2-6cfb-06d3-5540-e63c320df8bc@enterprisedb.com>
 <90b4e402-3f07-14f4-deca-5eaca31f70a3@enterprisedb.com>
 <de7e9856-b49f-67bd-2ade-447f2d2cbc4b@enterprisedb.com>
 <22aef14d-0ea1-9044-c2e7-29f88762eaec@enterprisedb.com>
 <32540e16-fab6-f790-b99b-5a8fca8bde52@enterprisedb.com>
 <3B014BE4-EE61-4834-8FF6-937B43C46BC7@enterprisedb.com>
 <3d68b45a-ceb5-6824-3a39-f53411fd0c88@enterprisedb.com>
 <802f8b1b-a798-be52-c829-7f0fb9faafd5@enterprisedb.com>
 <983bf0c7-9757-fd13-3896-8452cf4c4c52@enterprisedb.com>
 <9211312a-6501-1caf-ee7b-c0d4814b6091@enterprisedb.com>
 <41ada110-bc7c-32a3-08bd-fb5023dd74ba@enterprisedb.com>
 <bb8704a1-96e1-aa9c-aad7-6b006ef7dcd9@enterprisedb.com>
 <2eed0f76-3a1a-8b8b-ac1b-e0f9a0d98287@enterprisedb.com>
 <f242d058-be79-6a59-5497-0bb256cafcc7@enterprisedb.com>
 <e890448d-00b5-18d0-e894-85d17660d484@enterprisedb.com>
 <9defb937-20a9-1d9f-6972-f1c4b4da4f73@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAA4eK1K81djyw3DgPw0GOZr9C1VPo6R2avHf0_qoOFnONNKJFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1K81djyw3DgPw0GOZr9C1VPo6R2avHf0_qoOFnONNKJFw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f8e76b08-833e-8e9a-4299-94470d501aa7%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 23.02.22 12:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Isn't it better to support this with a syntax as indicated by Tom in
> one of his earlier emails on this topic [1]? IIUC, it would be as
> follows:
> 
> CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL TABLES, ALL SEQUENCES;

I don't think there is any point in supporting this.  What FOR ALL 
TABLES was really supposed to mean was "everything you can get your 
hands on".  I think we should just redefine FOR ALL TABLES to mean that, 
maybe replace it with a different syntax.  If you want to exclude 
sequences for some reason, there is already a publication option for 
that.  And FOR ALL SEQUENCES by itself doesn't make any sense in practice.

Are there any other object types besides tables and sequences that we 
might want to logically-replicate in the future and whose possible 
syntax we should think about?  I can't think of anything.