Re: Added schema level support for publication.

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I think the strict separation between publication-for-tables vs.
> publication-for-schemas is a mistake. Why can't I have a publication
> that publishes tables t1, t2, t3, *and* schemas s1, s2, s3. Also note
> that we have a pending patch to add sequences support to logical
> replication. So eventually, a publication will be able to contain a
> bunch of different objects of different kinds.

This seems like it's going to create a mess, because the meaning of
"include schema S" will change over time as we add more features.
That is, with the present patch (I suppose, haven't read it) we have
"schema S" meaning "publish all tables in schema S". When that other
patch lands, presumably that same publication definition would start
meaning "publish all tables and sequences in schema S". And a few years
down the road it might start meaning something else again. That sounds
like the sort of potentially app-breaking change that we don't like
to make.

We could avoid that bug-in-waiting if the syntax were more like
"FOR ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA s", which could later extend to
"FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA s", etc. This is then a very clean
intermediate step between publishing one table and "FOR ALL TABLES"
without a schema limitation.

I tend to agree that a single publication should be able to incorporate
any of these options.

regards, tom lane