> On Sep 10, 2022, at 4:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why we
>>> used this ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA language.
>>
>> The conversation, as I recall, was that "ADD SCHEMA foo" would only mean all
>> tables in foo, until publication of other object types became supported, at
>> which point "ADD SCHEMA foo" would suddenly mean more than it did before.
>> People might find that surprising, so the "ALL TABLES IN" was intended to
>> future-proof against surprising behavioral changes.
>
> If I encountered this syntax in a vacuum, that's not what I would
> think. I would think that ADD ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA meant add all the
> tables in the schema to the publication one by one as individual
> objects
Yes, it appears the syntax was chosen to avoid one kind of confusion, but
created another kind. Per the docs on this feature:
FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA
Marks the publication as one that replicates changes for all tables in the
specified list of schemas, including tables created in the future.
Like you, I wouldn't expect that definition, given the behavior of GRANT with
respect to the same grammatical construction.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
