On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:52 AM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd expect a lot of users to naturally think that "ALTER PUBLICATION > > > pub1 DROP ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA sc1;" would drop from the publication > > > all tables that are in schema "sc1", which is not what it is currently > > > doing. > > > Since the syntax was changed to specifically refer to FOR ALL TABLES > > > IN SCHEMA rather than FOR SCHEMA, then now it's clear we're referring > > > to tables only, when specifying "... FOR ALL TABLES in sc1, TABLE > > > sc1.test", so IMHO it's reasonable to remove duplicates here, rather > > > than treating these as somehow separate ways of referencing the same > > > table. > > > > > > > I see your point and if we decide to go this path then it is better to > > give an error than silently removing duplicates. > > > > Today, I have thought about this point again and it seems better to > give an error in this case and let the user take the action rather > than silently removing such tables to avoid any confusion.
I have handled this to throw an error. This is handled as part of v25 patch attached at [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2SytXy2TDnzzYkXWKgNp74ssPBXrkMXEyac1qVYSRkbw%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh