On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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 >> 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. > > I have committed your patch and removed the "Tables" footer for > all-tables publications, as was discussed later in the thread.
Thank you! Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers