On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 6/10/17 02:02, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com
>> <mailto:sawada.mshk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jeff.janes@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > If I create a publication "for all tables", \dRp+ doesn't indicate it is for
>> > all tables, it just gives a list of the tables.
>> >
>> > So it doesn't distinguish between a publication specified to be for all
>> > tables (which will be dynamic regarding future additions), and one which
>> > just happens to include all the table which currently exist.
>> >
>> > That seems unfortunate. Should the "for all tables" be included as another
>> > column in \dRp and \dRp+, or at least as a footnote tag in \dRp+ ?
>> >
>>
>> +1. I was thinking the same. Attached patch adds "All Tables" column
>> to both \dRp and \dRp+.
>>
>>
>> Looks good to me. Attached with regression test expected output changes.
>
> I have committed your patch and removed the "Tables" footer for
> all-tables publications, as was discussed later in the thread.
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center