> On Sep 9, 2022, at 8:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Things might be clearer if we'd made the syntax "ALTER PUBLICATION p1 > { ADD | DROP } { TABLE | SCHEMA } name". I don't understand why we > used this ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA language. The conversation, as I recall, was that "ADD SCHEMA foo" would only mean all tables in foo, until publication of other object types became supported, at which point "ADD SCHEMA foo" would suddenly mean more than it did before. People might find that surprising, so the "ALL TABLES IN" was intended to future-proof against surprising behavioral changes. — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
- why can't a table be part of the same publication a... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: why can't a table be part of the same publ... Amit Kapila
- Re: why can't a table be part of the same ... Tom Lane
- Re: why can't a table be part of the s... Amit Kapila
- Re: why can't a table be part of t... Robert Haas
- RE: why can't a table be part... houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
- Re: why can't a table be ... Robert Haas
- Re: why can't a table... Mark Dilger
- Re: why can't a table... Robert Haas
- Re: why can't a table... Isaac Morland
- Re: why can't a table... Mark Dilger
- RE: why can't a table... houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
- Re: why can't a table... Kyotaro Horiguchi
- RE: why can't a table... houzj.f...@fujitsu.com
- Re: why can't a table... Alvaro Herrera
- Re: why can't a table... Amit Kapila
- Re: why can't a table... vignesh C
- RE: why can't a table... houzj.f...@fujitsu.com