Horton

Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
To: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.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: 2025-06-23T00:54:10Z
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 →

  1. Fix miscellaneous issues in EXCEPT publication clause.

  2. Change syntax of EXCEPT TABLE clause in publication commands.

  3. Add support for EXCEPT TABLE in ALTER PUBLICATION.

  4. Allow table exclusions in publications via EXCEPT TABLE.

  5. Add wait_for_subscription_sync for TAP tests.

> > > 5.
> > > +  <para>
> > > +   Alter publication <structname>mypublication</structname> to add table
> > > +   <structname>users</structname> except column
> > > +   <structname>security_pin</structname>:
> > > +<programlisting>
> > > +ALTER PUBLICATION production_publication ADD TABLE users EXCEPT (security_pin);
> > >
> > > Those tags don't seem correct. e.g. "users" and "security_pin" are not
> > > <structname> (???).
> > >
> > > Perhaps, every other example here is wrong too and you just copied
> > > them? Anyway, something here looks wrong to me.
> > >
> > I saw different documents and usage of tags seems not well defined.
> > For example for table we are using tags in document
> > create_publication.sgml, update.sgml <structname> is used, in document
> > table.sgml, advanced.sgml <classname> is used, and in
> > logical-replication.sgml <literal>  is used. Similarly for column
> > names <structname>, <structfield> or <literal> are used in different
> > parts of the document.
> >
> > I kept the changed tag to <structfield> for the column for this patch.
> > Do you have any suggestions?
>
> No, for this patch I think it is best that you just follow nearby code
> (as you are already doing). I plan to raise another thread to ask what
> are the guidelines for this  sort of markup which is currently used
> inconsistently in different places.
>

FYI - I created a new thread asking this markup question [1].

======
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPvtf24r%2BbdPgBind84dBLPvgNL7aB%2B%3DHxAUupdPuo2gRg%40mail.gmail.com

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia