On 6/10/17 02:02, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com
> <mailto:sawada.m...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> > 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.
I have committed your patch and removed the "Tables" footer for
all-tables publications, as was discussed later in the thread.
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: