On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I create a publication "for all tables", \dRp+ doesn't indicate it is
> for
> > all tables, it just gives a list of the tables.
> >
> > So it doesn't distinguish between a publication specified to be for all
> > tables (which will be dynamic regarding future additions), and one which
> > just happens to include all the table which currently exist.
> >
> > That seems unfortunate.  Should the "for all tables" be included as
> another
> > column in \dRp and \dRp+, or at least as a footnote tag in \dRp+ ?
> >
> +1. I was thinking the same. Attached patch adds "All Tables" column
> to both \dRp and \dRp+.
Looks good to me.  Attached with regression test expected output  changes.



Attachment: psql_publication_v2.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to