Thread

Re: Support EXCEPT for ALL SEQUENCES publications

Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> — 2026-05-07T05:05:46Z

On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 18:12, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 15:12, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 10:48 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 12:33 AM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vignesh and Shveta,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reviewing the patches.
> > > > I have addressed the comments and attached the updated patch.
> > > >
> > > > This also addressed the comments shared by Shveta in [1].
> > > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uDU0PrH=gvFZjpphOX7t=2jH5wTqYry=C22vnuJJ9Q5=g@mail.gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please find few comments on 001 and 002:
> > >
> > >
> > > v-001:
> > > 1)
> > > - List    *except_tables; /* tables specified in the EXCEPT clause */
> > > + List    *except_relations; /* relations specified in the EXCEPT
> > > + * clause */
> > > Since we have not changed the comments for anything else in patch001,
> > > we can keep this comment too same as old and changeit in 002.
> > >
> > >
> > > v-002:
> > > 2)
> > > pg_publication_rel's prrelid doc says:
> > > Reference to table
> > > We shall change it now to 'Reference to table or sequence'
> > >
> > > 3)
> > > In doc, do we eed to change pg_publication_rel's prqual too? IMO, it
> > > is not applicable to sequence and thus we can change 'relation' to
> > > 'table' in explanation..
> > >
> > > 4)
> > >        Marks the publication as one that synchronizes changes for all sequences
> > > -      in the database, including sequences created in the future.
> > > +      in the database, including sequences created in the future. Sequences
> > > +      listed in <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause are excluded from the
> > > +      publication.
> > >
> > > I think we should place it the end of second paragraph rather than at
> > > the end of first. How about something liek this:
> > >
> > > Marks the publication as one that synchronizes changes for all
> > > sequences in the database, including sequences created in the future.
> > >
> > > Only persistent sequences are included in the publication. Temporary
> > > sequences and unlogged sequences are excluded from the publication.
> > > Sequences listed in EXCEPT clause are also excluded from the
> > > publication.
> > >
> > > 5)
> > > +      In such a case, a table or partition or sequence that is included in one
> > > +      publication but excluded (explicitly or implicitly) by the
> > > +      <literal>EXCEPT</literal> clause of another is considered included for
> > > +      replication.
> > >
> > > 'a table or partition or sequence' can be changed to 'a table,
> > > partition, or sequence'
> > >
> > > 6)
> > > In existign doc, shall we give example of publication creation for
> > > both tables and sequences, each having its except list? This is
> > > important to show that EXCEPT to be given with individual ALL OBJ. We
> > > can cahnge last example of doc file to make this. This one:
> > > 'Create a publication that publishes all sequences for
> > > synchronization, and all changes in all tables except users and
> > > departments:'
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > getPublications:
> > > + * Get the list of tables/sequences for publications specified in the
> > > + * EXCEPT clause.
> > >
> > > We can have both tables and sequences in single publication. We should change
> > >
> > > 'tables/sequences' --> tables and sequences
> > >
> > > 8)
> > > In describePublications(),
> > >
> > > We had:
> > > if (!puballtables)
> > > else
> > >   * Get tables in the EXCEPT clause for this publication */
> > >
> > > now we have added:
> > > if (puballsequences)
> > >  /* Get sequences in the EXCEPT clause for this publication */
> > >
> > > Since now we can hit this function for 'all-seq' pub too, shall we
> > > change if-block's condition to:
> > >
> > > if (!puballtables && !puballsequences)
> > >
> > > and else-block to
> > >
> > > else if (puballtables)
> > >
> > > otherwise all-seq case will unnecessary enter these blocks and will
> > > exceute the logic
> > >
> > > Please review other functions too in pg_dump to see if we need such
> > > conditions altering.
> > >
> > >
> > > 9)
> > > +# Check the initial data on subscriber
> > > +$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
> > > + "SELECT last_value, is_called FROM seq1");
> > > +is($result, '200|t', 'sequences in EXCEPT list is excluded');
> > > +
> > > +$result = $node_subscriber->safe_psql('postgres',
> > > + "SELECT last_value, is_called FROM seq2");
> > > +is($result, '200|t', 'initial test data replicated for seq2');
> > >
> > > Since both are replicated now because of conflicting EXCEPT in
> > > multi-pub, shall we change
> > > comment in 'is(..)'?
> > >
> >
> >
> > For v-003, one trivial thing:
> >
> > Shall we change the name of AlterPublicationTables() as well? It now
> > deals in both tables and sequences.
> >
> Thanks for reviewing the patch. I agree that we should change the name
> here. Modified the patch.
>
> I have also addressed the remaining comments by you and Vignesh in [1], [2], [3]
> Attached the updated version.
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2pGi3FAkN+x+10nqFKNHOUdMwEgqt_TtjLbvz04F3Ktg@mail.gmail.com
> [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uBB4N8KOrHchdgprVi2Ws1+gTcEr+bC2A_ziAHOcZcTqA@mail.gmail.com
> [3]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm1BRQ1s9na_gwLwN3BYER9be+4QNn4V8sDjiMUvao28Jg@mail.gmail.com

I noticed that CFbot is failling.
The test case in this patch needs to be updated due to changes
introduced by the recent commit 2e1d4fd.
I have made the change and attached the updated patch. I have also
made some cosmetic changes.

Thanks,
Shlok Kyal