Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications

Hi Nisha.

Some review comments for patch v7-0001.

======
src/backend/catalog/pg_publication.c

GetTopMostAncestorInPublication:

1.
- else
+ else if (!list_member_oid(except_pubids, puboid))
{
aschemaPubids = GetSchemaPublications(get_rel_namespace(ancestor));

IIUC this `except_pubids` and `puboid` are not changing, so you do not
need to be doing this member check every loop iteration. Is it better
to assign some variable up-front?

e.g.
bool check_schemas = !list_member_oid(except_pubids, puboid);

~~~

publication_add_relation:

2.
+ if (is_except)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
+ errmsg("relation \"%s\" cannot be added because it is excluded from
publication \"%s\"",
+ RelationGetQualifiedRelationName(targetrel),
+ pub->name)));

I am unsure about the changed wording from "table" to "relation". IIUC
we say "relation" when it could be either a table or a sequence. So
maybe "table" is correct for your patch;l OTHOH this should change to
"relation" by Shlok's EXCEPT SEQUENCE patch [1].

~~~

3.
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
+ errmsg("relation \"%s\" is already member of publication \"%s\"",
+ RelationGetQualifiedRelationName(targetrel), pub->name)));

IMO making everything fully qualified like this would be a good
change, but doing it here perhaps does not belong in your patch. I
have resurrected this question in the other thread [2], which would
affect not only this statement. but many others. Please post your
opinion about this on that other thread.

======
src/backend/commands/publicationcmds.c

ObjectsInPublicationToOids:

4.
static void
ObjectsInPublicationToOids(List *pubobjspec_list, ParseState *pstate,
- List **rels, List **exceptrels, List **schemas)
+ List **rels, List **except_rel_names, List **schemas)

Is `except_rel_names` an accurate name? IMO it makes it sound like
it's a list of char* names, but IIUC that is not the case; aren't
these PublicationTable objects? Would something like
`except_pubtables` be more correct?

~~~

CreatePublication:

5.
- List *exceptrelations = NIL;
+ List *except_rel_names = NIL;

Same doubts about this `except_rel_names` variable name.

~~~

AlterPublication:
6.
List *relations = NIL;
- List *exceptrelations = NIL;
+ List *except_rel_names = NIL;

Same doubts about this `except_rel_names` variable name.

======
src/backend/replication/pgoutput/pgoutput.c

get_rel_sync_entry:

7.
+ if (am_partition)
+ {
+ List *part_ancestors = get_partition_ancestors(relid);
+
+ root_relid = llast_oid(part_ancestors);
+ list_free(part_ancestors);

I think just call this `ancestors` (not `part_ancestors`) for
consistency with other code in the same function.

======
src/bin/psql/tab-complete.in.c

On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 9:27 PM Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 7:57 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
...
> > 6.
> > + else if (Matches("CREATE", "PUBLICATION", MatchAny, "FOR", "TABLES",
> > "IN", "SCHEMA", MatchAny, "EXCEPT", "(", "TABLE", MatchAnyN) &&
> > ends_with(prev_wd, ','))
> > + COMPLETE_WITH_SCHEMA_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_tables);
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is working as intended.
> >
> > When testing for multiple except tables I get results like:
> > ----
> > test_pub=# create publication pub1 for tables IN SCHEMA myschema <TAB>
> > EXCEPT ( TABLE WITH (
> > test_pub=# create publication pub1 for tables IN SCHEMA myschema
> > except ( table <TAB>
> > test_pub=# create publication pub1 for tables IN SCHEMA myschema
> > except ( table myschema.t<TAB>
> > myschema.t1 myschema.t2 myschema.t3
> > test_pub=# create publication pub1 for tables IN SCHEMA myschema
> > except ( table myschema.t1,<TAB>
> > information_schema. myschema. public. t1
> > t2 t3
> > ----
> >
> > Note: it is offering suggstions for schema names outside of the
> > "myschema". Should this code be calling
> > Query_for_list_of_tables_in_schema instead of
> > Query_for_list_of_tables?
> >
>
> For this case, I don't think it's really possible to keep suggesting
> after a comma. Even if we handle a fixed number of comma-separated
> entries, the same problem reappears with the next entry.
> Query_for_list_of_tables_in_schema needs a correct schema reference,
> but with each comma the relative offset changes, so there is no single
> fixed prev*_wd that can reliably point to the schema across all
> entries.
>
> But I see, the current call to Query_for_list_of_tables is clearly
> incorrect here. I have now suppressed suggestions after a comma,
> instead of showing incorrect suggestions.
> Thoughts?
>

8.
REPLY: Yeah, I don't have any good ideas how to fix this, or if a fix
is even possible, but I agree that doing nothing is better than doing
the wrong thing.

~~~

9.
BTW, the current code is not able to handle multiple schemas.

So, this works:
test_pub=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 for TABLES IN SCHEMA myschema <TAB>
EXCEPT ( TABLE WITH (

but, this doesn't do anything:
test_pub=# CREATE PUBLICATION pub1 for TABLES IN SCHEMA public, myschema <TAB>

======
[1] Shlok EXCEPT -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAHut%2BPsUrYmbZ996ZybjMWvpW_ufXB8WM94pdvAPyzQpoe%2BHRA%40mail.gmail.com#579d9b99c4f620602085cc59ff0e2b7d
[2] schema-qualified messages -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPvWoOyLKFb627Ch%2BXg3TYHuHdaOZ_XmxYgKVYdOzpqFsw%40mail.gmail.com

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia