From Tue, Sept 14, 2021 11:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > 6.
> > I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables
> > and the list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication
> > should only contain the tables and all tables in schemas which user
> > specified. If user only specified all tables in schema, and didn't
> > specify tables, the tables which used to be part of the publication
> > should be dropped, too. But currently, if I didn't specify tables, the list of
> tables wouldn't be set to empty. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I think we can go either way here but it seems like we should drop the tables in
> the case you mentioned. The idea is that the SET variant in ALTER PUBLICATION
> should replace the set of tables and schemas for the publication which seems
> to be in line with the current behavior where we replace the set of tables.
>
> Anyone else wants to weigh in on this?
I agree that the one SET variant should replaces both the list-of-tables and the list-of-schemas.
Best regards,
Hou zj
