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

> On Sep 19, 2022, at 8:03 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> "When a partitioned table is added to a publication, all of its existing and future partitions are implicitly considered to be part of the publication."[10]
>
> Additionally, this is the behavior that is already present in "FOR ALL TABLES":
>
> "Marks the publication as one that replicates changes for all tables in the database, including tables created in the future."[10]
>
> I don't think we should change this behavior that's already in logical replication.

The existing behavior in logical replication doesn't have any "IN SCHEMA" qualifiers.

> While I understand the reasons why "GRANT ... ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA" has a different behavior (i.e. it's not applied to future objects) and do not advocate to change it, I have personally been affected where I thought a permission would be applied to all future objects, only to discover otherwise. I believe it's more intuitive to think that "ALL" applies to "everything, always."

The conversation is focusing on what "ALL TABLES" means, but the ambiguous part is what "IN SCHEMA" means. In GRANT it means "currently in schema, computed now." We are about to create confusion by adding the "IN SCHEMA" phrase to publication commands meaning "later in schema, computed then." A user who diligently consults the documentation for one command to discover what "IN SCHEMA" means may fairly, but wrongly, assume it means the same thing in another command.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company