| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(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>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Added schema level support for publication. |
| Date: | 2021-09-02 22:33:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+Pt6Czj0KsE0ip6nMsPf4FatHgNDni-wSu2KkYNYF9mDAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:50 PM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From Wed, Sep 1, 2021 2:36 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Schema objects are not part of the publication. Current only TABLES are in
> > publications, so I thought that \dRp+ output would just be the of "Tables" in
> > the publication. Schemas would not even be displayed at all (except in the
> > table name).
>
> I think one use case of schema level publication is it can automatically
> publish new table created in the shcema(same as ALL TABLE publication). So,
> IMO, \dRp+ should output Schema level publication separately to make the user
> aware of it.
OK. That is a fair point.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-09-02 22:36:08 | Re: [PATCH] pg_ctl should not truncate command lines at 1024 characters |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-09-02 22:07:02 | Re: Read-only vs read only vs readonly |