On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:44 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@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.