On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:53 AM tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com
<tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 2:36 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 11:14 AM tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. When using '\dn+', I noticed that the list of publications only contains the
> > > publications for "SCHEMA", "FOR ALL TABLES" publications are not shown. Is it
> > designed on purpose?
> > > (The result of '\d+' lists the publications of "SCHEAME" and "FOR ALL TABLES").
> > >
> > > For example:
> > > create schema sch1;
> > > create table sch1.tbl(a int);
> > > create publication pub_schema for all tables in schema sch1;
> > > create publication pub_all_tables for all tables;
> >
> > I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, Do you want to post the
> > question in a separate thread and see if that should be handled?
> >
>
> Sorry, maybe I didn't make my last question clearly enough.
>
> In HEAD(where schema level is not supported for publication), there is no publication
> information in the result of '\dn+'.
>
> With this schema patch, '\dn+' shows the publications related to the schema, but ALL
> TABLES publications are not shown. Do you think we should add ALL TABLES publications, too?
>
No, I don't think we need to display For All Tables publication under
\dn+. It is already shown with \d+ <table_name> command.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
