On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:53 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com <tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 2, 2021 2:36 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 11:14 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com > > <tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > 3. When using '\dn+', I noticed that the list of publications only > > > contains the > > > publications for "SCHEMA", "FOR ALL TABLES" publications are not shown. > > > Is it > > designed on purpose? > > > (The result of '\d+' lists the publications of "SCHEAME" and "FOR ALL > > > TABLES"). > > > > > > For example: > > > create schema sch1; > > > create table sch1.tbl(a int); > > > create publication pub_schema for all tables in schema sch1; > > > create publication pub_all_tables for all tables; > > > > I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, Do you want to post the > > question in a separate thread and see if that should be handled? > > > > Sorry, maybe I didn't make my last question clearly enough. > > In HEAD(where schema level is not supported for publication), there is no > publication > information in the result of '\dn+'. > > With this schema patch, '\dn+' shows the publications related to the schema, > but ALL > TABLES publications are not shown. Do you think we should add ALL TABLES > publications, too? >
No, I don't think we need to display For All Tables publication under \dn+. It is already shown with \d+ <table_name> command. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
