On 9/25/21 12:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Sep-24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> But that's not the column filtering patch, right? Why would this patch
>> depend on "schema level support", but maybe the consensus is there's some
>> common part that we need to get in first?
>
> Yes, the grammar needs to be common. I posted a proposed grammar in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202109241325.eag5g6mpvoup%40alvherre.pgsql
> (this thread) which should serve both. I forgot to test the addition of
> a WHERE clause for row filtering, though, and I didn't think to look at
> adding SEQUENCE support either.
>
Fine with me, but I still don't know which version of the column
filtering patch should I look at ... maybe there's none up to date, at
the moment?
> (I'm not sure what's going to be the proposal regarding FOR ALL TABLES
> IN SCHEMA for sequences. Are we going to have "FOR ALL SEQUENCES IN
> SCHEMA" and "FOR ALL TABLES AND SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?)
>
Should be "FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN SCHEMA" of course ;-)
On a more serious note, a comma-separated list of objects seems like the
best / most flexible choice, i.e. "FOR TABLES, SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA"?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company