On 23.02.22 12:10, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Isn't it better to support this with a syntax as indicated by Tom in
> one of his earlier emails on this topic [1]? IIUC, it would be as
> follows:
>
> CREATE PUBLICATION p FOR ALL TABLES, ALL SEQUENCES;
I don't think there is any point in supporting this. What FOR ALL
TABLES was really supposed to mean was "everything you can get your
hands on". I think we should just redefine FOR ALL TABLES to mean that,
maybe replace it with a different syntax. If you want to exclude
sequences for some reason, there is already a publication option for
that. And FOR ALL SEQUENCES by itself doesn't make any sense in practice.
Are there any other object types besides tables and sequences that we
might want to logically-replicate in the future and whose possible
syntax we should think about? I can't think of anything.