From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Added schema level support for publication. |
Date: | 2021-08-14 09:32:04 |
Message-ID: | 4fb39707-dca9-1563-4482-b7a8315c36ca@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.08.21 04:59, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Even if we drop all tables added to the publication from it, 'pubkind'
>> doesn't go back to 'empty'. Is that intentional behavior? If we do
>> that, we can save the lookup of pg_publication_rel and
>> pg_publication_schema in some cases, and we can switch the publication
>> that was created as FOR SCHEMA to FOR TABLE and vice versa.
>>
> Do we really want to allow users to change a publication that is FOR
> SCHEMA to FOR TABLE? I see that we don't allow to do that FOR TABLES.
> postgres=# Alter Publication pub add table tbl1;
> ERROR: publication "pub" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES
> DETAIL: Tables cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES publications.
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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2021-08-14 10:46:36 | Re: Default to TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-08-14 08:03:01 | Re: Default to TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE? |