Re: Added schema level support for publication.

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-08-16T06:00:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 1:23 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> This seems like it's going to create a mess, because the meaning of
> "include schema S" will change over time as we add more features.
> That is, with the present patch (I suppose, haven't read it) we have
> "schema S" meaning "publish all tables in schema S".  When that other
> patch lands, presumably that same publication definition would start
> meaning "publish all tables and sequences in schema S".  And a few years
> down the road it might start meaning something else again.  That sounds
> like the sort of potentially app-breaking change that we don't like
> to make.
>
> We could avoid that bug-in-waiting if the syntax were more like
> "FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s", which could later extend to
> "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA s", etc.  This is then a very clean
> intermediate step between publishing one table and "FOR ALL TABLES"
> without a schema limitation.
>
> I tend to agree that a single publication should be able to incorporate
> any of these options.
>

How about if the improved syntax from Tom Lane [1] also allowed an
"AND" keyword for combining whatever you wish?

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;

------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/155565.1628954580%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4fb39707-dca9-1563-4482-b7a8315c36ca%40enterprisedb.com

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia



Commits

  1. Include schema/table publications even with exclude options in dump.

  2. Rename some enums to use TABLE instead of REL.

  3. Add tap tests for the schema publications.

  4. Allow publishing the tables of schema.

  5. In pg_dump, use simplehash.h to look up dumpable objects by OID.