Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
Date
Msg-id 596EA671-66DF-4285-8560-0270DC062353@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
List pgsql-hackers

> 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
objecttypes became supported, at which point "ADD SCHEMA foo" would suddenly mean more than it did before.  People
mightfind 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






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Making autovacuum logs indicate if insert-based threshold was the triggering condition
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Making autovacuum logs indicate if insert-based threshold was the triggering condition