Horton

Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

View thread
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@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>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-12-10T05:50:59Z
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.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 11:17 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> I have removed the 0001 0002 and 0004 patches for now. Will post them
> once 0003 patch is RFC.
> Here is the update patch for "EXCEPT TABLE".
>

Thanks, I have not looked at new patch yet, but here are few comments
for v29-003:

1)
create_publication.sgml:
Please add one more example in the example section for EXCEPT using
'all tables, and all sequences' after the last existing one. This is
needed to show that ALL TABLES EXCEPT() and ALL SEQ are still possible
in single command.

2)
+      excluded. Optionally, <literal>*</literal> can be specified after the
+      table name to explicitly indicate that descendant tables are excluded.
+     </para>

We may add: This does not apply to a partitioned table, however.
(this will make it more clear similar to how existing doc has it for
'FOR TABLE' clause ). And then start details on partition.

3)
When
+      <literal>publish_via_partition_root</literal> is set to
+      <literal>false</literal>, specifying a partitioned table or non-leaf
+      partition has no effect

Can we simply say 'specifying a root partitioned table has no effect'.
This will make it consistent as the previous sentence also uses the
same term rather than 'non-leaf'.

4)
tab_root is a partitioned table with tab_part_1 and tab_part_2 as its
partitions.
In the first case, I receive a WARNING because the user excluded
tab_part_2 but its data will still be replicated through the root
table:

postgres=# create publication pub3 for all tables except (tab_part_2)
WITH (publish_via_partition_root=true);
WARNING:  partition "tab_part_2" will be replicated as
publish_via_partition_root is "true"

But in the following case, no WARNING is shown:
postgres=# create publication pub4 for all tables except (tab_root)
WITH (publish_via_partition_root=false);
CREATE PUBLICATION

In this scenario, the user has excluded the root table, yet its data
will still be replicated because publish_via_partition_root = false.
Should we emit a warning in this case as well? Thoughts?

5)
publication_add_relation:
+ if (pub->alltables && pri->except && targetrel->rd_rel->relispartition &&
+ pub->pubviaroot)

Can we please bring both the 'pub' conditions together, as that seems
more understandable:
if (pub->alltables && pub->pubviaroot &&...)

6)
We have added pubid as argument to GetAllPublicationRelations to
exclude except-list tables.
We should change comment atop GetAllPublicationRelations() to indicate
the same. We should extend
this existing comment to say about except-list exclusion also.

 * If the publication publishes partition changes via their respective root
 * partitioned tables, we must exclude partitions in favor of including the
 * root partitioned tables.

thanks
Shveta