Re: Skipping schema changes in publication

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 4:49 AM Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 at 13:03, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
...
> > 21.
> > I was wondering if the "describe" for tables (e.g. \d+) should also
> > show the publications where the table is an ECEPT TABLE? How else is
> > the user going to know it has been excluded by some publication?
> >
> I thought it would be sufficient to show only the list of
> publications, the table is part of.
> Users can check the excluded tables by checking the description of the
> publication using \dRp+.
> Will it be not sufficient?
> I am not sure why we should show a list of publications which it is not part of?
> Am I missing something thoughts?

For this comment, I was imagining a scenario where there are dozens of
publications, and the user is wondering why their table is not being
replicated to the subscriber like they expected it would be.

Yes, they could use \dRs+ to identify the publications excluding it,
but that will be quite painful if there are very many publications
they have to check. IIUC, there is no other way to check it without
digging into System Catalogs.

That's why I thought it might be useful if the \d+ could also show
publications where the table was named in an EXCEPT TABLE clause.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.