Horton

Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema

Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-09-09T18:17:12Z
Lists: 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 object types became supported, at which point "ADD SCHEMA foo" would suddenly mean more than it did before.  People might find 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

Commits

  1. Allow publications with schema and table of the same schema.