Thread

Re: Improve documentation of publication privilege checks

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2025-12-24T00:52:37Z

On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Shlok/Chao-San.
>
> How about this alternative wording:
>
>   <para>
>    To create a publication using any of <literal>FOR ALL TABLES</literal>,
>    <literal>FOR ALL SEQUENCES</literal>, or
>    <literal>FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser.
>    To alter a publication using <literal>ADD TABLE</literal>, the user must
>    have ownership rights on the table.  To alter a publication using
>    <literal>ADD TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser.
>   </para>
>
>
I initially preferred Chao Li's version but upon deeper consideration I've
settled on this variant.  The conjunctions in the other are nice, but I've
come to like how create and alter are better separated here.  And the
choice to list "add table" first breaks up the string of superuser required
commands when switching from creating to altering.

Kinda feel we should start this with the individual table creation case
though:

To create a publication using FOR TABLE, the user must have ownership
rights on all listed tables.  To create a publication using any of ... the
user must be a superuser.  To alter ...

The alter case likewise accepts multiple tables...

David J.