On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:54 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > 7) This updates psql to do roughly the same thing as for tables, so \dRp > now list sequences added either directly or through schema, so you might > get footer like this: > > \dRp+ testpub_mix > ... > Tables: > "public.testpub_tbl1" > Tables from schemas: > "pub_test" > Sequences: > "public.testpub_seq1" > Sequences from schemas: > "pub_test" > > Maybe it's a bit too verbose, though. It also addes "All sequences" and > "Sequences" columns into the publication description, but I don't think > that can be done much differently. > > FWIW I had to switch the describeOneTableDetails() chunk dealing with > sequences from printQuery() to printTable() in order to handle dynamic > footers. > > There's also a change in \dn+ because a schema may be included in one > publication as "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA" and in another publication > with "FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA". So I modified the output to > > \dn+ pub_test1 > ... > Publications: > "testpub_schemas" (sequences) > "testpub_schemas" (tables) > > But maybe it'd be better to aggregate this into a single line like > > \dn+ pub_test1 > ... > Publications: > "testpub_schemas" (tables, sequences) > > Opinions? >
I think the second one (aggregated) might be slightly better as that will lead to a lesser number of lines when there are multiple such publications but it should be okay if you and others prefer first. > 8) There's a shortcoming in the current grammar, because you can specify > either > > CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL TABLES; > > or > > CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL SEQUENCES; > > but it's not possible to do > > CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL TABLES AND FOR ALL SEQUENCES; > > which seems like a fairly reasonable thing users might want to do. > Isn't it better to support this with a syntax as indicated by Tom in one of his earlier emails on this topic [1]? IIUC, it would be as follows: CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL TABLES, ALL SEQUENCES; > The problem is that "FOR ALL TABLES" (and same for sequences) is > hard-coded in the grammar, not defined as PublicationObjSpec. This also > means you can't do > > ALTER PUBLICATION p ADD ALL TABLES; > > AFAICS there are two ways to fix this - adding the combinations into the > definition of CreatePublicationStmt, or adding FOR ALL TABLES (and > sequences) to PublicationObjSpec. > I can imagine that adding to PublicationObjSpec will look compatible with existing code but maybe another way will also be okay. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/877603.1629120678%40sss.pgh.pa.us -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
