On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> writes:
> > Then the question from Peter E. [2] "Why can't I have a publication
> > that publishes tables t1, t2, t3, *and* schemas s1, s2, s3." would
> > have an intuitive solution like:
>
> > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1
> > FOR TABLE t1,t2,t3 AND
> > FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2,s3;
>
> That seems a bit awkward, since the existing precedent is
> to use commas. We shouldn't need more than one FOR noise-word,
> either. So I was imagining syntax more like, say,
When I wrote that "AND" suggestion I had in mind that commas may get
weird if there were objects with keyword names. e.g. if there was a
schema called SEQUENCE and a SEQUENCE called SEQUENCE then this will
be allowed.
CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA SEQUENCE, SEQUENCE SEQUENCE;
But probably I was just overthinking it.
>
> CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR
> TABLE t1,t2,t3, ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2,
> SEQUENCE seq1,seq2, ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA s3,s4;
>
> Abstractly it'd be
>
> createpub := CREATE PUBLICATION pubname FOR cpitem [, ... ] [ WITH ... ]
>
> cpitem := ALL TABLES |
> TABLE name |
> ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA name |
> ALL SEQUENCES |
> SEQUENCE name |
> ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA name |
> name
>
> The grammar output would need some post-analysis to attribute the
> right type to bare "name" items, but that doesn't seem difficult.
That last bare "name" cpitem. looks like it would permit the following syntax:
CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR a,b,c;
Was that intentional?
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
