Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:29 AM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> IIRC, the feature currently works almost the same as you described. It doesn't
> create entry for tables that are published via its schema level, it only record
> the published schema and check which tables are part of it.

Oh, well if that's the case, that is great news. But then I don't
understand Amit's comment from before:

> Yes, because otherwise, there was confusion while dropping the objects
> from publication. Consider in the above case, if we would have allowed
> it and then the user performs ALTER PUBLICATION p1 DROP ALL TABLES IN
> SCHEMA s1, then (a) shall we remove both schema s1 and a table that is
> separately added (s1.t1) from that schema, or (b) just remove schema
> s1?

I believe that (b) is the correct behavior, so I assumed that this
issue must be some difficulty in implementing it, like a funny catalog
representation.

Things might be clearer if we'd made the syntax "ALTER PUBLICATION p1
{ ADD | DROP } { TABLE | SCHEMA } name". I don't understand why we
used this ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA language.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com