On 9/21/22 10:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2022-Sep-20, Robert Haas wrote:I don't think we should change this behavior that's already in logical replication. While I understand the reasons why "GRANT ... ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA" has a different behavior (i.e. it's not applied to future objects) and do not advocate to change it, I have personally been affected where I thought a permission would be applied to all future objects, only to discover otherwise. I believe it's more intuitive to think that "ALL" applies to "everything, always."Nah, there's room for multiple behaviors here. It's reasonable to want to add all the tables currently in the schema to a publication (or grant permissions on them) and it's reasonable to want to include all current and future tables in the schema in a publication (or grant permissions on them) too. The reason I don't like the ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA syntax is that it sounds like the former, but actually is the latter. Based on your link to the email from Tom, I understand now the reason why it's like that, but it's still counterintuitive to me.I already proposed elsewhere that we remove the ALL keyword from there, which I think serves to reduce confusion (in particular it's no longer parallel to the GRANT one). As in the attached.
[personal, not RMT hat] I'd be OK with this. It would still allow for "FOR SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA" etc. Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
