Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/10/17 02:02, Jeff Janes wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada > > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes > > wrote: >> > If

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On 6/10/17 02:02, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes > wrote: > > If I create a publication "for all tables", \dRp+ doesn't indicate i

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On 15/06/17 11:10, Tom Lane wrote: Jeff Janes writes: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: In the second place, this really fails to respond to what I'd call the main usability problem with \dRp+, which is that the all-tables property is likely to lead to an unreadably bulky list

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I was hoping we'd get some more votes in this thread, but it seems like > we've only got three, and by my count two of them are for just printing > "all tables". The following looks right - given a publication it would nice to know if its for a

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

Jeff Janes writes: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In the second place, this really fails to respond to what I'd call >> the main usability problem with \dRp+, which is that the all-tables >> property is likely to lead to an unreadably bulky list of affected tables. >> What

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes > wrote: > >>> That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as > >>> another column in \dRp

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as another column in \dRp and \d

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

Jeff Janes writes: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> 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 wa

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes 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 publicat

Re: [HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes 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

[HACKERS] logical replication: \dRp+ and "for all tables"

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