On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> writes: > > Then the question from Peter E. [2] "Why can't I have a publication > > that publishes tables t1, t2, t3, *and* schemas s1, s2, s3." would > > have an intuitive solution like: > > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 > > FOR TABLE t1,t2,t3 AND > > FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2,s3; > > That seems a bit awkward, since the existing precedent is > to use commas. We shouldn't need more than one FOR noise-word, > either. So I was imagining syntax more like, say,
When I wrote that "AND" suggestion I had in mind that commas may get weird if there were objects with keyword names. e.g. if there was a schema called SEQUENCE and a SEQUENCE called SEQUENCE then this will be allowed. CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA SEQUENCE, SEQUENCE SEQUENCE; But probably I was just overthinking it. > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR > TABLE t1,t2,t3, ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s1,s2, > SEQUENCE seq1,seq2, ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA s3,s4; > > Abstractly it'd be > > createpub := CREATE PUBLICATION pubname FOR cpitem [, ... ] [ WITH ... ] > > cpitem := ALL TABLES | > TABLE name | > ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA name | > ALL SEQUENCES | > SEQUENCE name | > ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA name | > name > > The grammar output would need some post-analysis to attribute the > right type to bare "name" items, but that doesn't seem difficult. That last bare "name" cpitem. looks like it would permit the following syntax: CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR a,b,c; Was that intentional? ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.
