Re: Skipping schema changes in publication
Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
To: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, YeXiu <1518981153@qq.com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-12-10T23:01:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix miscellaneous issues in EXCEPT publication clause.
- 6b0550c45d13 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Change syntax of EXCEPT TABLE clause in publication commands.
- 5984ea868eee 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add support for EXCEPT TABLE in ALTER PUBLICATION.
- 493f8c6439cf 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Allow table exclusions in publications via EXCEPT TABLE.
- fd366065e06a 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add wait_for_subscription_sync for TAP tests.
- 0c20dd33db16 16.0 cited
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 4:49 AM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 at 13:03, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > 21. > > I was wondering if the "describe" for tables (e.g. \d+) should also > > show the publications where the table is an ECEPT TABLE? How else is > > the user going to know it has been excluded by some publication? > > > I thought it would be sufficient to show only the list of > publications, the table is part of. > Users can check the excluded tables by checking the description of the > publication using \dRp+. > Will it be not sufficient? > I am not sure why we should show a list of publications which it is not part of? > Am I missing something thoughts? For this comment, I was imagining a scenario where there are dozens of publications, and the user is wondering why their table is not being replicated to the subscriber like they expected it would be. Yes, they could use \dRs+ to identify the publications excluding it, but that will be quite painful if there are very many publications they have to check. IIUC, there is no other way to check it without digging into System Catalogs. That's why I thought it might be useful if the \d+ could also show publications where the table was named in an EXCEPT TABLE clause. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.