| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, YeXiu <1518981153(at)qq(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Date: | 2026-03-30 04:11:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-shuXJjuSYqm4+Eyc08_Zzdaerf=yTHsYL6=zMEWKhf_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 9:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 8:02 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > ~~~
> >
> > EXCEPT:
> >
> > 3.
> > <varlistentry id="sql-createpublication-params-for-except-table">
> > - <term><literal>EXCEPT TABLE</literal></term>
> > + <term><literal>EXCEPT</literal></term>
> > <listitem>
> >
> > The 'EXCEPT' clause is not really at the same level as all the other
> > ones, because it can only be applied to the FOR ALL TABLES. So, I felt
> > maybe 'EXCEPT' might make more sense as a sublist entry under the FOR
> > ALL TABLES clause.
> >
>
> Possible but in future it would be applicable for all the three
> variants listed above: FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA, FOR ALL TABLES, FOR ALL
> SEQUENCES. So, don't think making it as a sublist for "FOR ALL TABLE"
> is a good idea. I find keeping it at its current place okay as it is
> also an independent clause.
Keeping it independent makes sense, as it will allow for easier future
expansion.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nisha Moond | 2026-03-30 04:18:19 | Re: Use SIGTERM instead of SIGUSR1 for slotsync worker to exit during promotion? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-03-30 04:07:19 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |