RE: Added schema level support for publication.
От | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Added schema level support for publication. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB57163FE828F62DA6209E151594DA9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Added schema level support for publication. (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From Tue, Sept 14, 2021 11:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:06 PM tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > 6. > > I think if I use 'ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET', both the list of tables > > and the list of all tables in schemas should be reset. The publication > > should only contain the tables and all tables in schemas which user > > specified. If user only specified all tables in schema, and didn't > > specify tables, the tables which used to be part of the publication > > should be dropped, too. But currently, if I didn't specify tables, the list of > tables wouldn't be set to empty. Thoughts? > > > > I think we can go either way here but it seems like we should drop the tables in > the case you mentioned. The idea is that the SET variant in ALTER PUBLICATION > should replace the set of tables and schemas for the publication which seems > to be in line with the current behavior where we replace the set of tables. > > Anyone else wants to weigh in on this? I agree that the one SET variant should replaces both the list-of-tables and the list-of-schemas. Best regards, Hou zj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: