On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:02 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 13.08.21 04:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Even if we drop all tables added to the publication from it, 'pubkind'
> >> doesn't go back to 'empty'. Is that intentional behavior? If we do
> >> that, we can save the lookup of pg_publication_rel and
> >> pg_publication_schema in some cases, and we can switch the publication
> >> that was created as FOR SCHEMA to FOR TABLE and vice versa.
> >>
> > Do we really want to allow users to change a publication that is FOR
> > SCHEMA to FOR TABLE? I see that we don't allow to do that FOR TABLES.
> > postgres=# Alter Publication pub add table tbl1;
> > ERROR: publication "pub" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES
> > DETAIL: Tables cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES publications.
>
> I think the strict separation between publication-for-tables vs.
> publication-for-schemas is a mistake. Why can't I have a publication
> that publishes tables t1, t2, t3, *and* schemas s1, s2, s3. Also note
> that we have a pending patch to add sequences support to logical
> replication. So eventually, a publication will be able to contain a
> bunch of different objects of different kinds.
>
Valid point.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
