On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:44 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> 4) Is FOR ALL TABLES a good idea?
>
> I'm not sure FOR ALL TABLES is a good idea. Or said differently, I'm
> sure it won't work for a number of use cases. I know large databases
> it's common to create "work tables" (not necessarily temporary) as part
> of a batch job, but there's no need to replicate those tables.
>
> AFAIK that'd break this FOR ALL TABLES publication, because the tables
> will qualify for replication, but won't be present on the subscriber. Or
> did I miss something?
>
As the subscriber is created from standby, all the tables should be
present at least initially during and after creating the subscriber.
Users are later free to modify the publications/subscriptions.
> I do understand that FOR ALL TABLES is the simplest approach, and for v1
> it may be an acceptable limitation, but maybe it'd be good to also
> support restricting which tables should be replicated (e.g. blacklist or
> whitelist based on table/schema name?).
>
This would be useful, but OTOH could also be enhanced in a later
version unless we think it is a must for the first version.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.