On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 at 06:23, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Shlok/Chao-San.
>>
>> How about this alternative wording:
>>
>> <para>
>> To create a publication using any of <literal>FOR ALL TABLES</literal>,
>> <literal>FOR ALL SEQUENCES</literal>, or
>> <literal>FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser.
>> To alter a publication using <literal>ADD TABLE</literal>, the user must
>> have ownership rights on the table. To alter a publication using
>> <literal>ADD TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser.
>> </para>
>>
>
> I initially preferred Chao Li's version but upon deeper consideration I've settled on this variant. The conjunctions in the other are nice, but I've come to like how create and alter are better separated here. And the choice to list "add table" first breaks up the string of superuser required commands when switching from creating to altering.
>
> Kinda feel we should start this with the individual table creation case though:
>
> To create a publication using FOR TABLE, the user must have ownership rights on all listed tables. To create a publication using any of ... the user must be a superuser. To alter ...
>
> The alter case likewise accepts multiple tables...
>
Thanks Chao-san, Peter and David for reviewing the patch. I also felt
the version shared by Peter is more appropriate. I have made the
suggested changes by David.
Thanks,
Shlok Kyal