Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications

On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 12:13 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Each time new EXCEPT rules are proposed in this thread, they come with
> a worked examples, but I felt there was still a risk that other
> combinations could be broken and go unnoticed. Then, when a
> problematic combination is later encountered, we're back to square one
> again.
>
> To help avoid that, I made a matrix of *many* combinations (~300),
> covering both inheritance and partitioning.
>
> Also, TBH I was getting lost keeping track of what "case 1", "case 2",
> etc. meant. In this matrix, every case can instead be referred to like
> "11x23" — a combo of clauses "11" and "23" (the first digit being the
> schema). This makes it easy to refer to any of the 300 combinations
> unambiguously. Furthermore, the same combination numbers (e.g. 11x23)
> mean the same thing in both the INHERITANCE and PARTITIONING matrices,
> so the two can be directly compared.
>
> PSA the doc containing the matrices, rules, results, diagrams, and a
> key for interpreting them.
>
> My conclusion is that the rules proposed by Shveta ([1] and also
> included in the document) are sound; they can be applied to all these
> combinations to give unambiguous results. FWIW, my AI checking
> confirms the matrix results are consistent.
>
> Of course, there are more possible variations (e.g. diamond
> inheritance shapes), but IMO these 300 test cases give a much more
> solid starting point.
>

Thanks, Peter, for putting in such a huge effort to work through these
cases. I’ll go through them carefully and get back to you.

--
Nisha