On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <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. Cheers, Jeff
psql_publication_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
