| From: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications |
| Date: | 2026-08-18 04:54:25 |
| Message-ID: | CALDaNm1-oc46mdnb3RNZr2tB3Uk5gWm+iJvFU04pLQRF5vY1bw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 at 11:42, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If we implement what I suggested above, Case 2's implementation for
> partitions would be contrary to what we decided at [2] earlier for the
> scenario at [1]. However, after reconsidering all scenarios, I feel
> the new approach (suggested above) makes more sense and is also
> consistent with Case 3. Case 2 and Case 3 are logically the same and
> should have the same behaviour, IMO. Thoughts?
The v28 version of the attached patch handles the changes to throw an
error when a partition table is both included and excluded through an
EXCEPT clause, keeping the behavior consistent with inheritance
tables.
Regards,
Vignesh
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v28-0002-Add-EXCEPT-support-to-ALTER-PUBLICATION-ADD-TABL.patch | application/octet-stream | 38.1 KB |
| v28-0004-Documentation-Patch.patch | application/octet-stream | 12.6 KB |
| v28-0003-Add-EXCEPT-support-to-ALTER-PUBLICATION-SET-TABL.patch | application/octet-stream | 42.2 KB |
| v28-0001-Support-EXCEPT-clause-for-schema-level-publicati.patch | application/octet-stream | 110.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-08-18 04:55:51 | Re: pg_control_checkpoint(): add "data_checksum_version" (Pg19)? |
| Previous Message | Imran Zaheer | 2026-08-18 04:37:14 | Re: Failing assertion while taking a restartpoint during crash recovery |