Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 11:41, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 7:50 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 12:35 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to summarize the discussion/feedback for the EXCEPT
> > > syntax implemented in [1].
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > The currently implemented syntax is ([1]):
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE (a, b, c);
> > >
> > > There were concerns about why the TABLE keyword and the parentheses
> > > '()' are required. These have been answered in [2].
> > >
> > > Please review the discussion there.
> > >
> > > 2)
> > > Another feedback on current syntax was to move the TABLE keyword
> > > inside the parentheses:
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE t2,
> > > TABLES IN SCHEMA s1);
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA s1 EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE
> > > t2), TABLE t3;
> > >
> > > While this approach is workable, a downside is the repeated use of the
> > > TABLE keyword inside the parentheses, which can become verbose. But it
> > > can then be optimized to have:
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, t3);
> > >
> > > This could be extended further in the future:
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLES IN
> > > SCHEMA s1, s2);
> > >
> > > This approach gives users flexibility to mix styles, for example:
> > >
> > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLE t2, TABLE t3)
> > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, t3)
> > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLE t3)
> > > EXCEPT (TABLE t1, TABLES IN SCHEMA s1, s2, TABLE t2, t3)
> > >
> > > While flexible, this can reduce clarity due to mixed styles, making
> > > the statement harder to read. If extended further, the syntax could
> > > evolve into something like:
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR
> > > ALL TABLES
> > >    EXCEPT (TABLE t1, t2, TABLES IN SCHEMA s1, s2),
> > > ALL SEQUENCES
> > >    EXCEPT (SEQUENCE s1);
> > >
> > > At this point, one might also question why not allow something like:
> > > FOR ALL (TABLES, SEQUENCES).
> > >
> > > Additionally, this shows a potential drift toward less structured
> > > syntax. Instead, with the syntax already implemented in [1], its
> > > future extension would look like:
> > >
> > > CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 FOR
> > > ALL TABLES
> > >    EXCEPT TABLE (t1, t2),
> > >    EXCEPT TABLES IN SCHEMA (s1, s2),
> > > ALL SEQUENCES
> > >    EXCEPT SEQUENCE (seq1, seq2);
> > >
> > > Although slightly more verbose, this approach keeps each clause
> > > self-contained and explicit. The meaning of each part is determined
> > > locally, rather than depending on elements appearing far in the
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > The current syntax in [1] is simple and easy to follow. We have
> > > retained the current implementation for now, while remaining open to
> > > further discussion and suggestions.
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2-Ob9qPR%2BvqUSVMkxYO8RW4LQ_S1XiB0Y7xa54U%3DDqbA%40mail.gmail.com
> > > https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=fd366065e06ae953c4f2d973d5c5f0474f3b87b6
> > >
> > > [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uB20MhJJEaPJdm31t4fykJ%2BfChA_76jU2P9HX5knbJvAA%40mail.gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the summary. While I find the current implementation
> > simpler and more intuitive, and would prefer it if we were designing
> > this from scratch, we must consider the existing patterns for table
> > inclusion. Since the inclusion syntax already supports a mixed
> > approach, users will likely expect the same flexibility for
> > exclusions. For the sake of consistency across the features, I believe
> > we should move toward the mixed approach, despite my preference for
> > the current structured style.
> >
>
> IIUC, you think that we should change the current syntax "CREATE
> PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT TABLE (a, b, c);" to "CREATE
> PUBLICATION pub FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT (TABLE a, b, c);".
>
> By now multiple people (Dilip Kumar, Peter Smith, Sawada Masahiko)
> have preferred the alternate syntax, to move TABLE inside () to make
> specifying inclusion and exclusion list in a similar way. Unless we
> have more feedback, I think we can change it now.

Attached patch has the changes for the same.

Regards,
Vignesh