On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:02 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > 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. >
Valid point. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
